House of Commons
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We have a well-established living costs and food survey, which has been running for many years and which informs our “Family Food” publication. It includes questions on household spend on food, including that of the lowest 20% of income households. This figure has remained reasonably stable, at around 16%, for many years.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
May I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, because I believe it is your birthday? Happy birthday, Mr Speaker—I hope you have a good’un!
I thank the Minister for his response, but he knows as well as I do that that is simply not good enough. An estimated 8.4 million people in Britain live in food-insecure households. There have been repeated calls from me, the all-party group on hunger, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Food Foundation, Sustain and Oxfam for the Government to adopt a household food-insecurity measurement. Why will the Government not just admit that the fact is that their resistance to introducing such a measurement is because once they have admitted the scale of hunger, they will have to do something about it and admit that it is largely caused by their punitive welfare reform policies?
George Eustice
I, too, add the best wishes of Government Members to you on your birthday, Mr Speaker. I understand that it is also the birthday of the House of Commons Chaplain, Rose. I am sure we will all want to add our best wishes to her, too.
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady. This Government have got more people back into work than ever before, and the best way to tackle poverty is to help people off benefits and get them into work. In the LCFS, which has been running for many years, we have an established measure of how much the lowest-income households are spending on food. It is a consistent measure and we are able to benchmark changes year on year. As I said, that has been very stable: it was 16% when the Labour party was in power and it is 16% now.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Food insecurity is a terrible thing, and it is exacerbated by low-income households spending too much on food that is not good for them. During the war, the wartime generation knew how to manage on a very tight budget, and nutrition actually improved for most households, including the very poorest. Could we learn some lessons from the wartime generation about how best to feed our people?
George Eustice
My colleagues in the Department of Health publish lots of very good guidance and run lots of very good campaigns to encourage healthy eating. In addition, we have the school food plan, which aims to improve the nutrition of food in schools so that children learn lifelong good habits. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is possible to eat good, nutritious food, the cost of which has been remarkably stable.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
When I visit my local food banks, I hear that the number of people relying on them is going up. Is it not the truth that the Government do not want to collect data on that because they would have to admit the failure of their policies, not least the fact that getting a job is no longer a route out of poverty because of the levels of in-work poverty they have created?
George Eustice
This Government have introduced the concept of a national living wage, which will raise incomes for the lowest paid in our society. I, too, visit my local food bank, and I send my case officers into the food bank to help people who may be having particular problems or crises in their lives. Many complex issues contribute to poverty. I advise all Members to work closely with their local food banks, as my office does.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The United Kingdom complies with the EU legislation for nearly all air pollutants, but faces challenges in achieving nitrogen dioxide limits, along with 16 other EU member states. That is why we have committed more than £2 billion since 2011 to reduce transport emissions and the autumn statement provided a further £290 million to support greener transport. We should all recognise that air quality is actually improving, but we recognise that we need to go further and faster and will be consulting on a new national plan by 24 April.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Minister for her answer, but I believe the Secretary of State is aware of the GB Freight Route rail scheme, which will take up to 5 million lorry journeys off Britain’s roads each year, save thousands of tonnes of emissions, and radically improve air quality. Will she and her Ministers use their good offices to press the case for GB Freight Route in Government?
Dr Coffey
With Felixstowe in my constituency, I am fully aware of the advantages of rail freight. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the Departments for Transport and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely together on these matters. Shifting freight onto rail is a key part of any future strategy.
Matthew Pennycook
Is the Minister aware of the controversial proposal for a cruise liner terminal at Enderby Wharf in east Greenwich? With the air quality impact of that proposal in mind, will she tell us when the Government expect the recently promised review into shore-to-ship power and the assumptions that underpin port development to conclude?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his own council carried out an environmental impact assessment, which it considered when looking at that particular planning application. As he will also be aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, is committed to looking further at what can be done, and I am sure that he is making progress with that.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that British businesses have made great strides in recent years in producing technologies that enable us to improve air quality, such as the taxis that now run in Birmingham on liquefied petroleum gas and the adaptation of buses that have significantly cleaned up the air in Oxford Street?
Dr Coffey
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Her vast experience in this area is added to by her local knowledge of the city of Birmingham and the support going on there. This Government made a substantial transport settlement with the previous Mayor of London, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), and I know that air pollution has improved on Oxford Street over the past year, which is thanks specifically to the grants that were provided.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Camelford in north Cornwall suffers from very high levels of pollution, because of the A39 running straight through its town centre. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Camelford Town Council on the work that it has done to address the air quality? Will she work with the council and me to tackle the problem in the town?
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Royal College of Physicians has stated that air pollution contributes to approximately 40,000 deaths in the UK every year, and that diesel emissions have been poorly regulated. What progress are the Government making in that field?
Dr Coffey
Nitrous oxide levels have been falling, but I recognise that it is not happening quickly enough. The previous Labour Government signed us up to achieve deadlines by 2010, and failed spectacularly. We are continuing to invest in this area and will continue to do so and work with devolved Administrations on specific issues in other areas.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to make real progress on air quality is to forge ahead with ultra-low emission vehicles. Given that 25% of the cars on Norway’s roads are either electric or hybrid, does she agree that we need a real turbo-charged boost to get ahead in this area?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The low-emission vehicle industry is a competitive advantage for this country, which is why the Government are backing it through the Office for Low Emission Vehicles and the many millions of pounds that have been spent on improving the charging infrastructure up and down this country.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker, to both you and Rev. Rose.
The Government have lost the confidence of this House on air quality. More than 50,000 people are dying prematurely each year because of air pollution, and many more are suffering associated health conditions. With no guarantee from either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State that last December’s strict EU laws will be introduced post-Brexit, how can the country trust the Government to ensure cleaner air in future?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady refers to a lack of trust in this Government. I think that that is the pot calling the kettle black. It was the Labour Government who introduced fiscal incentives for people to switch to diesel cars, and it was the Labour Government who signed up to these guidelines. Air quality is better now than it was under a Labour Government. That is an uncontrovertible fact.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Hill farmers play a critical role not just in producing high-quality food, but in delivering environmental benefits for all the public in our beautiful landscapes. Leaving the EU gives us a great opportunity to look again at their contribution to delivering our very clear twin ambitions to have both a world-leading food and farming industry and, at the same time, a better environment for future generations.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful for that response from the Secretary of State. Of course, paying for environmental goods will only work as a strategy if the hill farms are financially viable. She knows that some of them are earning £14,000 a year, so income support mechanisms will still be necessary. Can she guarantee that in future trade negotiations she will not allow a flood of cheap New Zealand lamb that will put them out of business?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that we have undertaken, from our very first days in the job, to commit to the levels of current support for all pillar one payments until 2020 to give that continuity to farmers and businesses. We have committed to our consultation on the future of the food and farming sector in our 25-year plan, and that will look closely at the level of support that is needed. I absolutely agree that we will need to look at what we do for the future to ensure that hill farmers remain viable and sustainable.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right that there is now a real opportunity to create a system of rural support that is bespoke to the United Kingdom and that is an environmental, economic and social policy. In that respect, giving Ministers the opportunity to move the money up the hill to protect those who are clinging on economically is an opportunity that I hope she will grasp.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable in this area and his input will be extremely useful when it comes to our consultation. He is exactly right that this is a unique opportunity to create a policy that works for us, not for 28 EU member states. That is exactly what we will be consulting on and what we will be delivering.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Happy birthday from me, too, Mr Speaker.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State or, indeed, the chairman of the Rural Payments Agency would tolerate waiting 13 and a half months for their salary cheque to arrive, yet that is what 50 hill farmers have had to do as they wait for their December 2015 single farm payments. Hundreds more waited up to a year to get their payments. They have been told that in the 2016-17 year they will be at the back of the queue to receive their payments if they farm on the commons. Will she commit to ensuring that those 50 are paid immediately, and will she also commit that those commoners, those hill farmers, who were at the back of the queue last year will be at the front of the queue this year?
Andrea Leadsom
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is just not apprised of the facts, which are that there are very few—[Interruption.] No. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) shouts 2,000 from the Front Bench, but people have received a payment and there are some challenges to those payments that are awaiting settlement. I would like to say to the hon. Gentleman that the RPA, under Mark Grimshaw, has strived to settle all outstanding claims. There are people challenging them, understandably, but that is what it is. Everybody has received a payment, apart from a very small number where issues such as probate are concerned, or where there are legal or inspection challenges. This year, many commoners have been paid across the board and we are up at 92.8% of payments so far, which is a good achievement compared with last year.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
Happy birthday from these Benches, too, Mr Speaker.
Given that lamb as a product is facing large tariffs in its most important market, farm payments will become more important than ever. Long term is not just the three years to 2020. The farming Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has said that we will get at least the same amount, if not more. Yesterday I challenged the Secretary of State for Scotland and he said:
“There is no suggestion that funding to Scottish agriculture will be cut”—[Official Report, 18 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 922.]
after 2020. Can the Secretary of State offer the same assurance that payments will not go down after 2020?
Andrea Leadsom
The assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that we will be looking at how to achieve our twin ambitions of a world-leading food and farming sector while ensuring that we leave the environment in a better state. We will be looking at the facts and then we will decide what level of funding is required to support those ambitions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
One of the great opportunities for farmers as we leave the EU is that of scrapping some of the bureaucratic rules that have limited their ability to maximise productivity and profitability sustainably—for example, the rule that dictates how many crops of what type they must grow, or the excessive number of inspections and farm visits to which they are subject.
Bob Blackman
Long life, Mr Speaker.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. As we free ourselves from the straitjacket of the common agricultural policy, which has added so many bureaucratic burdens to our farmers, what assessment has she made of the financial burden that our farmers are facing as a result of the common agricultural policy? What extra freedom will that mean for our farmers in the future?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this issue. It is something that we are determined to address as we develop new policies. Unnecessary rules cost farmers millions of pounds and up to 300,000 man hours each year, which says nothing of the lost opportunities. I will be paying very close attention to these issues in the coming months, as we look for better solutions that work for us rather than 28 EU member states.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not want to be nasty to anyone, especially on this day of all days—your birthday, Mr Speaker—but the fact is that these Government Front Benchers are sleepwalking into Brexit. We have heard so much from the Secretary of State before the Brexit vote; now we hear nothing. Our farmers and our people in the countryside know nothing about what is going to happen. They fear a new agricultural devastation in our countryside. What is she going to do about it?
Andrea Leadsom
If that is the hon. Gentleman’s definition of not being nasty to anyone, that does not really work very well. I am not sure that Labour has much support in the countryside because it has done nothing for country folk. It is the Government who have ensured that we continue with support until 2020 and with all agri-environment schemes that are signed up before we leave the EU for their lifetime, to ensure that continuity for business confidence. It is the Government who are committed to a world-leading food and farming industry, while at the same time to an environment that is better than we inherited. Those are great ambitions and we will achieve them.
Bill Wiggin
Having heard what my right hon. Friend has said, and knowing what sort of Minister she is, I cannot really believe that her team were fully briefed properly when they saw the nitrate vulnerable zones regulation rolled out to new parts of England.
Andrea Leadsom
I would be happy to meet and discuss that issue separately with my hon. Friend, but I can absolutely assure him that we looked very carefully at this issue. As ever, there is a balance between successful sustainable farming, food productivity and what is right for our environment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
May I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker?
Earlier this month, the Secretary of State told the Oxford farming conference how excited she was about
“scrapping the rules that hold us back”,
saying that we could all think of at least one EU rule that we would not miss. That may be true, but I am sure that each of us can also think of at least one rule that we would miss and would want to keep. Will the Secretary of State share her choice with us?
Andrea Leadsom
I have already shared a few choices—the three-crop rule, farm inspections, some of the rules around billboards and so on. I know that the hon. Lady cares a great deal about this matter, as I do. In the great repeal Bill, we will be bringing all environmental legislation—all EU legislation—into UK law, so that, as the Prime Minister said in her speech, the day after we leave the EU, the rules will be the same as the day before we left the EU. That is really important for continuity. At that point, we will be able to look at and change those rules for the better to suit the needs of the United Kingdom.
Rachael Maskell
If only it was that easy. Of course, that was an incredibly vague answer—not a specific EU regulation mentioned. Those of us who value EU regulations, which set high standards for food safety, the environment and animal welfare, will not find the Secretary of State’s answer reassuring today. Of course I assume that some kind of objective criteria have to be applied and that rules and regulations are not just going to be thrown on to the Brexit bonfire on the Secretary of State’s whim. If that is correct, can she tell us what those objective criteria are?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry if the hon. Lady perhaps did not hear my previous answer. I made it extremely clear that the day after we leave the EU the rules will be the same as the day before. After that, we will be seeking to meet our twin ambitions of a world-leading food and farming industry and an environment that is better than the one we inherited. To give her one example of a manifesto commitment that Labour did not have in its manifesto, we will push for high animal welfare standards to be incorporated into international trade agreements.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government are investing £2.5 billion between 2015 and 2021, delivering at least 1,500 new flood defence schemes and better protecting 300,000 homes. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, Government investment of £121 million is being made, delivering 18 schemes, better protecting more than 30,000 homes.
Matt Warman
I am afraid that I was overwrought with the excitement of your birthday, Mr Speaker, and forgot parliamentary procedure.
The Minister will know from the events of last week that my constituency is under great threat of flooding. I am sure that she will join the Prime Minister and I in praising the response of the emergency services under the threatening tidal surge. Does she agree, therefore, not only that the Boston barrier cannot come soon enough, but that it offers a huge economic opportunity that will allow Boston to be protected from flooding and to seize a new tourism dawn that could be improved with a lock?
Dr Coffey
What a “fentastic” idea. A design for the Boston barrier has been considered by the Environment Agency and is currently subject to a public inquiry under the Transport and Works Act Order. Alongside the famous Boston stump, it could be a compelling reason to ensure that we visit this special part of rural England. I personally extend my thanks to the Environment Agency, councils, emergency services and volunteers who helped to ensure that people were safe last weekend.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. Many small businesses across the UK that operate in flood risk areas are facing enormous flood insurance excesses. Will the Ministers please commit to persuading the Treasury to extend the Flood Re scheme for affordable insurance to small businesses? If there are floods again not only will individual companies go out of business; many high streets in my constituency might actually disappear.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We all love trees. Woodland planting in England is supported through the countryside stewardship woodland creation grant. To further encourage tree planting we launched the second round of the woodland creation planning grant and the woodland carbon fund. We are committed to planting 1 million trees for schools during this Parliament in partnership with the Woodland Trust and other community trusts.
Sir David Amess
Happy birthday from the residents of Southend West, Mr Speaker.
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Southend-on-Sea Borough Council on its memorial tree planting scheme, of which I am about to take advantage? Does she agree that planting a tree in memory of a deceased person is a fitting tribute and makes an excellent contribution to the overall quality of the environment?
Dr Coffey
I commend Southend-on-Sea Borough Council for its tree planting scheme, and I personally acknowledge my hon. Friend’s recent bereavement with the loss of his mother, Maud. I certainly agree with his tribute because trees can provide a longstanding reminder of the departed and offer bereaved loved ones a special place to visit that is living and growing. I know that from personal experience of the trees planted in Wrexham cemetery.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Having planted some 3,500 trees on my farm back home, I am aware of the incentives given by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Will the Minister indicate what long-term incentives there are for farmers to plant trees, and for the participation of community groups and schools in that process?
Several hon. Members rose—
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Perhaps planting a birthday tree would be a good idea, Mr Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that planting trees is an important part of keeping the whole environment in balance, and that the environment should be made a cornerstone of our post-Brexit agenda? There are enormous opportunities to sell our technologies worldwide and to show that we are world leaders. At home, we should weave the environment into everything to do with our economy and our social aims so that we increase productivity and security, benefit everyone and leave the environment in a better state than it was in when we inherited it.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of the tree, which can have multiple benefits, as she pointed out. Late last year, I visited St Vincent de Paul Primary School in Liverpool to support its tree-planting exercises. I can assure my hon. Friend that the environment is at the heart of the Government today, not just post-Brexit.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Leaving the EU represents a great opportunity for the rural economy because we will be free to design from first principles policies that really deliver for our own farmers and our own rural communities, without having to accept a centralised, one-size-fits-all policy set by the EU.
Patricia Gibson
Happy birthday to you from me, Mr Speaker. President-elect Trump spoke last week of the UK securing a very quick trade deal with the US once it has left the EU, which has led to fears that that could mean harsh compromises on issues such as the environment, animal welfare laws and food safety. Will the Secretary of State today reassure the House and people across the United Kingdom that any trade deal with the US will not involve such compromises, which would jeopardise our food safety and animal welfare laws? Will she reassure us that she understands that a very quick deal is not necessarily the same as a very good deal for the consumer or the producer?
George Eustice
The Secretary of State made it clear earlier that the Conservative party is the only party that made a commitment to reflect animal welfare standards in trade negotiations, and that remains a commitment of the Government. There are opportunities for our agricultural sector in the US, particularly in sectors such as dairy, and possibly in sectors such as lamb as well. My colleagues in the Department for International Trade will obviously lead on these matters once we leave the European Union, but there will be potential opportunities for UK industry as well.
Gavin Newlands
In his visit on Monday to Gryffe Wraes farm, which I visited last week, the farming Minister will have heard many Brexit concerns, one of which is about the potentially catastrophic impact on Scotland’s rural economy of ending free movement. At the Oxford farming conference, the Secretary of State hinted at some relaxation of that for the agri-sector. Can the Minister elaborate on that and assure the sector that taking on seasonal workers will not be a costly bureaucratic nightmare?
George Eustice
I had a very constructive meeting with members of NFU Scotland on Monday. We had a meeting for almost two hours, where we discussed a range of issues that are of concern to the industry, but also some of the opportunities that we have. As we move forward, we will work closely with all the devolved Administrations and with industry throughout the UK. When it comes to labour, we have heard the representations. We will be looking at those issues. It is a Home Office lead, but we are contributing to that debate.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
George Eustice
I can reassure my hon. Friend that, having grown up on a farm and worked in the farming industry for 10 years, I will be very much listening to farmers and their views, and wanting to learn from their experience. We will be listening to everybody as we develop future policy.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
We hear the reassurances that Ministers give about seasonal agricultural workers, but my hon. Friend will be aware that a great many farms and rural businesses rely on EU workers as part of their regular staffing requirement throughout the year. Will Ministers bear in mind the very real labour shortages that exist in much of the countryside as they discuss with ministerial colleagues how we tighten our immigration controls?
George Eustice
One of the things that I ran on my own farm was a very large soft fruit enterprise, where I had experience of employing over 200 people, so I am familiar with the challenges that certain sectors in agriculture bring to me. We are in discussion with a number of the leading players in this area to try to get an understanding of their needs, and it goes without saying that we are in discussion with colleagues in other Departments.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
George Eustice
These issues are very much a matter that we will be discussing with all the devolved Administrations as we move forward. The Prime Minister made that absolutely clear in her excellent speech earlier this week. We are going to discuss this right across the UK and agree what the right UK approach should be.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
This Government established the Natural Capital Committee, which we re-established in this current Parliament. We will also be publishing our 25-year environment plan in due course. We want to help everyone to understand how a healthy environment improves their lives and how spending time in the natural environment benefits health and wellbeing.
Oliver Colvile
Live long and prosper, Mr Speaker.
As my hon. Friend knows, I have been running a national campaign to save the hedgehog. She may also know that 2 February marks National Hedgehog Day. What can she do to ensure that young people are involved in the campaign to save our wildlife, obviously including the hedgehog, in the run-up to 2 February?
Dr Coffey
I commend my hon. Friend for his continuing support of the hedgehog. The Government support efforts to make our gardens more hedgehog-friendly through the creation of havens, and the campaigns within local communities to work together to look out for the hedgehog, including that of BBC Suffolk; I encourage him to get BBC Devon to do the same. We do have a proud tradition, and we want to continue that with our next generation.
Mary Creagh
Indeed, Mr Speaker. Many happy returns.
Hedgehogs and other wild mammals, and precious bird species, are currently protected under European Union regulations. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report on the effects on the natural environment of leaving the EU recommended a new environmental protection Act. Has the Minister had a chance to read the report, and what is her assessment of our recommendation?
Dr Coffey
I read it from cover to cover on the day it came out, as is appropriate for a Minister in serving the needs of the House. I can honestly say that our intention is to bring environmental legislation into law on the day that we leave the European Union. As a consequence, we see no need for any future legislation at this stage.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
I would like to place on record my sincere thanks for the commitment and hard work of the military, Environment Agency staff, local councils, volunteers and the emergency services during last weekend’s tidal surge. While a small number of properties were flooded, more than half a million homes and businesses were protected from flooding along the east coast as a result of their efforts. I am sure the whole House would like to join me in expressing our gratitude.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The consumer prices index is at the highest it has been for over two and half years, largely driven by rising food prices. Since the Government stubbornly refuse to measure and act on levels of food poverty, what will the Secretary of State do for the millions of people her Government have ignored for years now who cannot afford to eat?
Andrea Leadsom
Food prices are steady and have been reducing. There is a very recent small uptick, but generally food inflation has been low. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), explained to the hon. Lady earlier, we do monitor the levels of expenditure on food very closely.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We as a Government continue to invest in flood defences right around our coasts—a feature that my hon. Friend and I share in our constituencies. I reiterate our thanks to our emergency services and the military who helped people at risk last year. We continue to invest so that fewer homes and businesses will be at risk in future.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I was originally told that the study by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit investigating the potential link between emissions from municipal waste incinerators and health outcomes would be published in 2014, then 2015. In October last year, through a parliamentary question, I was told that it would be published this year. Is the Minister confident that it will at last be published this year?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Andrea Leadsom
I would, of course, be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. If we can get our diaries to work, that would be truly delightful. I would particularly like to see the success of the Pickering project, which has been one of the building blocks in securing the £15 million of funding that we announced in November last year, which is dedicated specifically to natural flood management schemes across the UK. This money will let us test new approaches to see how natural flood resources can help us in the future.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We do not have time to waste. Since the Westminster Hall debate in December, 4,007 elephants have been killed for their tusks. With China introducing a total ban on the ivory trade by the end of this year, will the Government reconsider their proposed and unworkable partial ban, which will still result in criminals being able to trade in ivory, and will the Government move immediately to a total ban on ivory, as Labour would?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady is talking nonsense. The Government are not proposing a partial ban. At the meetings I held in China and Vietnam at the illegal wildlife trade conference last year, we were very clear that we will do everything possible not just to enforce a ban on the trading of post-’47 ivory—enforcement is absolutely key—but to minimise exemptions. The hon. Lady needs to work with us to assure the protection of the species, not make party political points about it.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
As I said earlier, I have experience in the soft fruit industry. I know many of the growers in Evesham, and indeed I have had correspondence recently with Angus Davison, from one of the largest growers in the west midlands, on this issue. We understand the concerns and we are in discussions with departmental colleagues on it. We want to get the right approach so that we can control immigration but ensure that we have the labour where it is required.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
George Eustice
The Prime Minister gave the assurance that we seek a good deal, and that no deal is better than a bad deal; I do not think that anybody can disagree with that. I will simply say that in food and drink alone, we have a trade deficit with the EU of some £10 billion, so the EU has a great interest in having tariff-free access to the UK market.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the consultation on microbeads is out there. It contains a call for wider evidence on the need to tackle other plastics. We are developing a new litter strategy, which may well address this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is personally interested in the matter and intends to set up an innovation fund that may explore new ideas to tackle it.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
George Eustice
We will be looking at representations from all people. If we want to improve the farmed environment, we have to look at the whole farmed environment and not restrict our ambitions to the uplands or, indeed, the moorland areas. We are looking in a range of areas at how we can improve soil management and water quality.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
George Eustice
As the Secretary of State said earlier, we have now paid 92.8% of basic payment scheme claims for the current year. As a fellow Cornishman, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 97% of claims in Cornwall have now been paid.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in the country will be concerned that their interests should not be compromised in any free trade deal with New Zealand. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that she will fight for farmers in any free trade deal and ensure that they are not put out of the market because of cheap imports of New Zealand lamb? Will she fight for farmers in the post-Brexit world?
Andrea Leadsom
It will be for us, as a free and sovereign Parliament, to determine the terms of any free trade agreements. I have already read out our manifesto commitment on the highest levels of animal welfare. Our manifesto also commits to food safety and traceability. In our ambition to be a world-leading food and farming sector, we intend to promote those commitments around the world.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
There is a continuing problem of beam trawling, fly shooting and electronic pulse fishing in UK waters. Not only are those practices environmental vandalism, but they are having a devastating impact on local fishing communities. Will the Minister assure the House that he is doing everything he can to address the problem?
George Eustice
I am aware of the concerns, particularly about pulse trawling in the southern North sea. I have asked CEFAS, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, to look at the issue, do a review of current literature and give me a report on what we know about the science. In addition, there is a working group in the EU on the matter.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. At the time of the negotiations on the now stalled TTIP deal, the US Agriculture Secretary said that the EU needed to rethink its current bans on chlorine-washed chicken and beef from cattle raised with growth hormones. British consumers do not want those products on their shelves, but given that we are now in a much weaker negotiating position, how can the Minister reassure us that the Government will not allow them into the UK?
George Eustice
The US represents US interests in negotiations; the UK Government will represent the UK in any future trade negotiations. As I made clear earlier, we will not compromise on issues such as animal welfare and food safety.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Bishop of Southwark is currently visiting the west bank and Gaza and the Archbishop of Canterbury also intends to visit later this year. He is very keen that the House should know about the work of Embrace, whereby the Church of England is in partnership with 23 Palestinian Christian organisations to end poverty and bring justice to the Occupied Palestinian Territories—to Muslims, Christians and Jews alike.
Helen Goodman
Palestinian Christians are suffering the effects of the settlement. Two weeks ago, I stood on the hills behind Bethlehem and saw how the six-lane motorway and the wall carve through Palestinian farmland. Their houses are being demolished and I met a young man whose family had lost 18 trees, which are now being sold on the internet for £30,000. When the Archbishop and the Bishop go to the occupied territories, please could they make vocal their witness to the injustice that is happening?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Speaking out about injustice is precisely what Church leaders do, and they do it well. When the Archbishop visits, I am sure that he will look closely at the injustice that the hon. Lady described. It is scandalous that infant mortality is increasing in the occupied territories when, on the whole, it is in decline around the world. The Church supports the Anglican Al Ahli hospital, where 1,000 children and more than 15,000 adults are treated, so we give practical support to the territories.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There is an increasingly militant settler movement that treats Palestine like its own biblical theme park. To what does my right hon. Friend attribute the radical decline in the numbers of Palestinian Christians living in the west bank?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady have the advantage over me in having actually been to the occupied territories. I have not been there. Sadly, there is a huge pressure on Christians in the middle east. About 8% of the population of the middle east is Christian, with 80% concentrated in Egypt. As we saw at the Open Doors launch in Parliament last week, religious persecution is one of the main drivers of out-migration.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Best wishes, Mr Speaker. Will the right hon. Lady consider visiting Christians and others in the Palestinian west bank very soon? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), I too saw the land owned by 53 Christian families near Beit Jala, and the monastery and the convent. Despite protests and support from Christian leaders around the world, the wall proposal is going ahead through those lands. I hope the right hon. Lady will visit very soon.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I would love to have the opportunity to visit this very troubled part of our world and to see for myself the impressions gained by several hon. Members. The Church actively encourages its members to go and see the reality of life for Palestinian Christians. About 750,000 parishioners have taken advantage of this opportunity. I hope to add to their number.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I declare my interest, as I was on the same visit as the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). It might surprise people to know that there are Christians in the Palestinian Cabinet. The Palestinian Authority are responsible for both Jesus’s birthplace and his family home. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to encourage the Church to develop as close relationships as possible between the Church in this country and Christian communities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Dame Caroline Spelman
That is exactly the purpose of Embrace the Middle East. We are in partnership with 23 Palestinian Christian organisations. The value of the support we give through this scheme is equivalent to £1.25 million.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church of England has launched a new project specifically to equip and resource Church of England dioceses to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking. The Lord Bishop of Derby has pioneered this practical support to tackling trafficking. Working together with local charities and the Mothers’ Union, the Church seeks to support vulnerable women alongside those who suffer domestic violence.
Chi Onwurah
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to the work of the Church and to the many generous Geordies who help to support vulnerable and trafficked women in Newcastle, which is proud to call itself a city of sanctuary. Unfortunately, it is not enough and not every woman has the support they need. What is the Church doing to work more effectively with local authorities and police forces, which are suffering extreme cuts, to ensure that every vulnerable woman has someone to turn to?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Lord Bishop of Derby’s initiative I referred to is known as the Clewer Initiative. The objective of the Church is to share best practice in Derby with different dioceses. For example, Portsmouth diocese has expressed an interest in taking up what has been learned in Derby. Tackling trafficking and violence is about spotting the signs. Training will be given to parishioners and to members of the public, so that we all have our eyes opened to what is going on around us.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Adult victims of human trafficking are looked after by the most excellent Government scheme, which is administered on an umbrella basis by the Salvation Army. Many of the people who actually look after the victims are Christian groups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is exactly how it should work?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I am sure we all remember the work of Sir Anthony Steen in raising our awareness of the terrible blight of trafficking. It is often down to local voluntary groups to provide that arm of practical support to the victims of trafficking, who are all around us in our society.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Dame Caroline Spelman
The work of prison chaplains is especially important given the current pressures in the prison system. The Bishop to Prisons, the Lord Bishop of Rochester, will shortly be bringing Church of England chaplains together for a training and support event.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. My private Member’s Bill combating homelessness is currently proceeding through the House. One aspect of the Bill is to help ex-offenders leaving prison to find a proper place in society. What further action can the Church take to prepare ex-offenders for a life outside prison so that they do not reoffend in the future?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I commend my hon. Friend for his private Member’s Bill. We are all keen to see it become law and for action to flow from it. The Bishop of Rochester is sponsoring a new national initiative called “Prison Hope” designed to increase the level of volunteering around prisons, and I have seen it working in practice in my own constituency. A charity called Yellow Ribbon provides prisons with mentors from the parish to help offenders prepare for life outside and for going straight, with a job, a place to live, clothes to wear and some money to live on.
Mr Nuttall
Will my right hon. Friend explain what measures are in place to monitor prisoners’ commitment to the Christian faith after their release from prison? It is sometimes suggested that prisoners only start attending church services in the belief and hope that it will help them gain parole. If prisoners at least know that their continued adherence to the Christian faith is being monitored, they might think twice before trying to take advantage of the genuine support offered by prison chaplains.
Dame Caroline Spelman
Prison chaplains are highly experienced and welcome all those who show an interest in matters of faith, but they have become reasonably expert at spotting those for whom it is perhaps a means to a short-term end. It is important to remember that the primary aim is not to check ex-offenders—there is a statutory process for that, not a Church process—but to encourage whatever degree of personal faith, however small or doubtful, might possibly provide a resource to help an offender go straight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Many prisoners are veterans who have served in the Army and other armed forces. What deliberations has the right hon. Lady had with veterans charities and Army charities to ensure that specific help is given to veterans in prisons to support their spiritual or physical health?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I have not had any specific conversations with the Army charities, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have seen from the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), whose Bill is focused on homelessness, that there is a worrying nexus or correlation in relation to veterans leaving the Army and sometimes ending up homeless or getting caught up in a life of crime. All institutions, including the Church of England, need to work together to stop that happening.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Dame Caroline Spelman
In the last year, the Church of England has been promoting a range of new social media projects. For example, 750,000 people watched the “Joy to the World” videos—among them, Mr Speaker, was your chaplain, which is perhaps cause alone to share a piece of birthday cake with her today. The Church is also engaging over other social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook.
Oliver Colvile
What is the Church of England doing to promote the Book of Common Prayer, especially traditional evensong, online?
Dame Caroline Spelman
It is merely four years since the 350th anniversary of the Book of Common Prayer, and I am delighted to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that the service of evensong is showing significant growth, including, interestingly enough, among students and young professionals. Obviously, every church can now easily broadcast its services over the internet, and clearly evensong and the Book of Common Prayer find a place in our society today.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Many constituents have written to me concerned about religious persecution around the world. Does the right hon. Lady agree that digital and social media, through their very interconnectedness, offer an opportunity to promote interfaith tolerance?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I could not agree more. The digital world opens the world to our own eyes, and we become aware of the suffering of those who are being persecuted for their faith, which is something that our country stands up to combat. The Church will play its role in making more of us aware of religious persecution and seeing what we can do in action and prayer to combat it.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Cathedral and Church Buildings Division works closely with Historic England to monitor lead theft occurrences. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 has substantially reduced the instances of churches having their lead roofs stolen, but I know that in the diocese of Southwell and Nottingham, lead theft remains a persistent problem.
Tom Pursglove
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
St John’s church in Corby Old Village has suffered a significant number of lead thefts in recent years, which has resulted in very high repair bills. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those who are responsible for those thefts, and will she also congratulate the congregation on their spirited efforts to put things right?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I am sure that we all condemn thieves who steal lead from church buildings, not least because communities face very big bills for its replacement. My own parish church is in the same position. After such thefts, it becomes difficult to insure churches again.
I commend the congregation at my hon. Friend’s local church. I point them to the ChurchCare website, which shows that there are now ways of fixing lead, and marking systems for signature materials to help to deter thieves.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
My Committee approves the NAO’s future plans and resource requirements. The Commission is conscious of the need for the NAO to practise what it preaches in terms of value for money, and also to have the right capability to perform its duties.
Since 2010-11, the NAO has, under our direction, reduced the cost of its work by 26% in real terms, excluding new local government work. The NAO’s budget is set to ensure that it has the resources that it needs to discharge its statutory functions to Parliament, while also meeting the external quality standards that govern its audit work.
Henry Smith
Now that this country is leaving the European Union with the clear vision set out the other day by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, can my hon. Friend say what impact he believes that that will have on the NAO and the auditing of its accounts?
Sir Edward Leigh
It is obviously too early to say what the full impact of Brexit will be, but I can say that the NAO’s scrutiny will focus initially on the capacity and capability of Departments to deliver an effective and efficient exit process. The NAO is now the auditor of the new Department for Exiting the European Union, and will work with that Department and with the Treasury to ensure that disclosures in annual reports and accounts provide a transparent and balanced view of the impact on individual Departments. In my view, the whole point of this process is, indeed, to increase transparency and parliamentary accountability as we take back control of our own money.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
More than 60% of the existing NAO reports and investigations cover matters that exclude Scotland. Does the Chairman agree that Barnett consequentials should arise from that expenditure?
Sir Edward Leigh
I serve on the Procedure Committee, and we do discuss such matters. This is more a matter for the Committee than for the commission, but I can say that it is undoubtedly true that there will be Barnett consequentials.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
I am delighted to be able to announce that last month the Church of England received three awards at the Investment & Pensions Europe awards ceremony, including the award for climate-related risk management, which recognised, among other things, the Church of England’s comprehensive climate policy and commitment to ensuring the reduction carbon in its own portfolio.
Kerry McCarthy
I welcome the Church of England’s moves in this regard, but how does commitment to a low-carbon future sit with reports today that the Church has given the go-ahead for fracking on Church land?
Dame Caroline Spelman
It is not a question of a Church of England go-ahead. This is part of Government policy. On Tuesday, the Church released an updated briefing paper on shale gas and fracking. It does not endorse or reject the outright prospect of fracking, but fracking is acceptable to the Church only if it turns on three points: the place of the shale gas in the low-carbon economy, the adequacy and robustness of regulation, and the robustness of local planning. Of course the Church sympathises with the concerns of individuals and communities that are directly affected by it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
The target date for completion of work on the Northern Estate is November 2023, which is the date by which the buildings will have been reoccupied.
Chris Bryant
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker—although I recall that you did not wish me a happy birthday, or even call me, on my birthday last week.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for that answer from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but the key thing about the date is that that is when the decant from this building is meant to have started, and there is a series of decisions that knock on one from another. If the Government do not bring forward the motion so we can start debating what is going to happen to the Palace of Westminster, is there not a real danger we will put that project and the public finances at risk?
Tom Brake
I certainly agree that it is important that we have a debate on this matter very soon, and I hope that is going to happen, but although there are linkages between the Northern Estate and the restoration and renewal project, it is my understanding that any delay on R and R would have an insignificant impact on the Northern Estate programme itself.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church of England actively promotes its 42 cathedrals as visitor centres, and together they contribute £220 million to the national economy. There are 10 million visitors to them annually, and 7,000 people are employed by them, supported by 15,000 dedicated volunteers.
Christian Matheson
Is the right hon. Lady aware of the excellent work of the clergy at Chester cathedral in increasing visitor numbers through tourist attractions, which of course has the added bonus of getting people into the cathedral for its original purpose of worship, and is there a lesson for other cathedrals to learn from this?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Yes, and I encourage all Members to visit Chester cathedral. Last year I invited the vice dean, Canon Peter Howell-Jones, to come and talk to us about how he had turned the fortunes of Chester cathedral around, making it a very attractive visitor attraction, and introducing a brewery and a falconry centre, opening the tower for tours and, intriguingly, removing the entry charge for all of that. He has now moved on to a new appointment and I wish him every success in that new cathedral.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Torbay as a tourist destination is blessed with places like Cockington parish church and the historic Paignton parish church. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that those who go to a church find the Holy Spirit, particularly if they are in distress, and an easy way of finding a place for prayer, rather than a ticket desk?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Yes. I have just been talking about Chester cathedral, where visitor numbers significantly increased with the removal of the entry charge. A church has always got to be a place where we can all go to find our spiritual base and recharge our spiritual batteries and, as my hon. Friend says, meet with the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Speaker’s Statement
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I should like to make a brief statement to the House.
The House of Commons Service has participated in Stonewall’s workplace equality index for the past five years. Stonewall is the largest charity in Europe in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. This year, Stonewall has announced that we have achieved a place in its index of the top 100 LGBT-friendly employers, ranking 28th with a score of 155 out of 200 points. Colleagues, this is an impressive rise of 88 places on last year’s index ranking of 116th, and the first time that we have been named in the published top 100. In addition to this score, ParliOUT, the parliamentary workplace equality network for LGBT equality, has been named one of Stonewall's “highly commended network groups”. Among its achievements in 2016, ParliOUT members raised money to buy the rainbow flag that flew over Parliament for the first time during London Pride weekend in June.
I should like to thank stakeholders from across Parliament for their support in this achievement, led by the redoubtable Anne Foster and her colleagues in the House of Commons Diversity and Inclusion team, and an achievement which I confess I have been passionately championing as Speaker. I hope that this news demonstrates our commitment to being an inclusive employer and institution.
We are pleased with the progress and we shall now redouble our efforts in the coming years to improve further upon it.
Business of the House
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 23 January—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.
Tuesday 24 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Wales Bill followed by motion relating to the charter for budget responsibility followed by motion relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Wednesday 25 January—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on prisons followed by a debate entitled “The detrimental effects on disabled people of Government plans on employment and support allowance and universal credit”. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 26 January—Debate on a motion relating to statutory pubs code and the pubs code adjudicator followed by debate on a motion relating to access to Kadcyla and other breast cancer drugs. Both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 27 January—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 30 January will include:
Monday 30 January—Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 31 January—Second Reading of the Bus Services Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 1 February—Opposition day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 2 February—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 3 February—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of January will be:
Monday 23 January—Debate on an e-petition relating to the banning of non-recyclable and non-compostable packaging.
Thursday 26 January—General debate on protecting civil society space across the world.
Monday 30 January—Debate on an e-petition relating to pay restraint for “Agenda for Change” NHS staff.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, but we still do not appear to have a date for the summer recess. I ask him to think carefully about that and perhaps come back with it next week, possibly with dates for Prorogation and the state opening as well.
Mr Speaker, may I wish you a very happy birthday? I am afraid that the House cannot sing to you. As a tennis fan, I do not know whether your presents included new balls, but we all know how well you handle a racquet—both outside and inside the Chamber. I also wish a happy birthday to Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin. She was an inspired choice as Speaker’s Chaplain and provides great pastoral support for MPs. Perhaps the Leader of the House will join me in challenging you both to a doubles match for charity.
Sadly, this House is losing MPs, including a former Prime Minister, but I point out that many hon. Members have made an incredible contribution and that things can be done from the Back Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) amended the Finance Bill, highlighting gender-based pricing. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on stalking, and, with the help of the other place and the Government, has extended the maximum sentence for stalking to 10 years. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), when speaking about the loss of her baby, reminded us that we should allow coroners in England to investigate stillbirths so that errors in care can be addressed.
Many other hon. Members from across the House do great work, which is why many of us cannot understand why the Prime Minister refused to come and tell the House and its elected representatives about a major policy announcement that affects the whole country. The 12 points of principle are Government policy initiatives and should have been 12 paragraphs in a White Paper. The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said last week that his pleasure
“is magnified when I address the Chair and you, Sir, are occupying it.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 488.]
I wish he would say that to the Prime Minister. The 12 objectives should have been set out in a White Paper last September, which would have ended the speculation and uncertainty that have engulfed us for the past six months. However, we still need clarity on several issues, so I can see why the Prime Minister did not want to be questioned about them.
I welcome objective 4, which is about maintaining the common travel area with Ireland. The Prime Minister said that the devolved Administrations will be consulted, but, given the elections in Northern Ireland, will the Leader of the House confirm who from Northern Ireland will be sitting on the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)? Gibraltar voted 96% to remain. What consultation do the Government intend to have with Gibraltar, and how, before Spain plants its flag? Spain has already threatened to plant its flag in Gibraltar.
The Prime Minister talks of a global Britain, yet principle 5 sets out the Government’s proposals to keep the world out. She said:
“And because we will no longer be members of the Single Market, we will not be required to contribute huge sums to the EU budget.”
In principle 10 she wants the UK to continue to be the best place for science and innovation, forgetting that in 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion, the fourth largest share in the EU, for research and development, with the private sector receiving £1.4 billion. And that is just one sector. We give but we get something back.
As we await the Supreme Court judgment on a point of law on 24 January—next Tuesday—let us remind the people that the judges are on their side, upholding the rule of law and holding the Executive to account. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, whatever Bill comes out after the judgment, it will not be a cynical, one-line Bill, as suggested by Government counsel? The Prime Minister wants to do this for our children and grandchildren, but our children between the ages of 18 and 24 voted overwhelmingly, 75%, to remain in the EU. They already feel let down.
As we remember Martin Luther King Day this week and Holocaust Memorial Day next week, let us remember the words of Martin Luther King and Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor who sadly died last year. And let us remember that the European Union was formed for nations to come together in peace, not hatred. We must remember that we are interdependent: we do not live in isolation, whether as individuals, countries or nations. Our constituents want justice—economic and social justice—both here and in Europe. In the months and years ahead, let those, too, be our guiding principles.
Mr Lidington
On the dates for the summer recess and Prorogation, although I hope to oblige the House as soon as I am able, the hon. Lady and others will understand that there are uncertainties about how long it will take to transact the business before the House in the weeks to come, so I am not yet able to give firm dates.
The hon. Lady made a number of criticisms and asked a number of questions about the Government’s handling of the forthcoming EU negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union gave an oral statement to the House and answered Members’ questions for about two hours. In the hon. Lady’s strictures on the Prime Minister, I detect a sense of the frustration that I know is widely shared on the Labour Benches at the inability of the Leader of the Opposition to lay a glove on the Prime Minister every Wednesday on this or other matters.
The Ministers who have not resigned from the Northern Ireland Executive, in the way that Mr McGuinness stepped down as Deputy First Minister, remain as acting Ministers until the new Executive can be appointed, so the Government are able to talk to them. Of course, officials from the Northern Ireland Executive continue to attend meetings. I used to chair Joint Ministerial Committees on Europe, and I remember that after the previous Stormont elections it took a while for the Executive to be formed. During that period, Northern Ireland officials did attend the joint meetings to make sure that Northern Ireland was represented.
In line with the Prime Minister’s undertaking following the referendum, Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Government of Gibraltar, from the Chief Minister down. More broadly, on the question of the European Union and the hon. Lady’s concluding words, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it very clear during her speech that the last thing she and the Government are seeking is a weakening or dismantling of the European Union. The Prime Minister said in terms that she wanted the European Union to succeed. My right hon. Friend and the entire Government are very aware of the fact that for much of Europe the mid-20th century was an utterly scarring experience, and that many Governments and many people in those countries still look to European institutions as a safeguard against anything like that happening again. We respect that outlook, which stems from their historical experience in the last century. We will go forward respecting and determined to implement the democratic verdict of the British people last June, but in a way that seeks to achieve a future relationship with our closest neighbours that is based on mutual trust, friendship, and continued alliance and co-operation on a range of policy measures.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I join the hon. Lady in wishing all the best to you and to the Speaker’s Chaplain on your birthdays today. I would be happy to accept the hon. Lady’s challenge, but I have to say that, knowing your prowess on the tennis court, I would regard the outcome of the encounter as something of a forgone conclusion.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a bit rich of the shadow Leader of the House to complain about parliamentary scrutiny of the matters announced to the media. I lived through the Blair and Brown years, when they never even bothered to turn up to answer anything, whereas this Government have been absolutely splendid—better than the coalition Government. Although the Opposition claim they want to discuss and bang on about Europe, yesterday’s debate on Europe finished early, as they did not have enough speakers, so will the excellent Minister continue to schedule general debates? Could they be themed debates, with one on each of the 12 points the Prime Minister mentioned, so that the Opposition could have as much time as they like to discuss this?
Finally, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would just like to put to rest a lie. The leader of the Liberal Democrats claimed that I might have written the Prime Minister’s speech, but I had nothing to do with it; it was her own words.
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether that last comment was a bid to join the ministerial speechwriting teams in the future. On the point about debates, there will be ample opportunities for the House to continue to debate all aspects of the forthcoming negotiation on the European Union.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May I, too, wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker? Lang may yer lum reek, as we say in these parts. May I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week?
This week has quite simply been a bad week for Parliament, and the Leader of the House, as this House’s champion, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. The Prime Minister made perhaps the most important statement about the future of this country— not in here, where the elected Members are, but in an assembly full of the press and diplomats. We know now that it is almost certain that a Bill will be required in order to trigger article 50, so will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this Bill will be subject to the maximum scrutiny, thoroughly amendable and properly debated in this House?
May we have a debate on how to win friends and influence people? The Foreign Secretary’s is currently touring Europe like a dodgy character out of “’Allo ’Allo!”, doing his utmost to upset the very people that global Britain needs to negotiate with to get a good deal on exiting the EU. We now know that this Government’s predominant obsessions—everything that underpins this approach to leaving the EU—are immigration and freedom of movement, so perhaps they could start by confining the Foreign Secretary to barracks here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart
Steady on! Over-eagerness there from those on the Labour Benches.
Will the Leader of the House do what the Prime Minister failed to do yesterday and confirm that the English votes for English laws procedure will not be applied to the great repeal Bill? That Bill will cut across many devolved competences, it will be a very complicated Bill and there will be many jurisdictions involved in it, so will he do what the Prime Minister failed to do yesterday and rule out EVEL today?
Lastly, through no fault of our own, we lost about half our Opposition day on Tuesday. Obviously, it was very necessary that people had an opportunity to question Ministers on the two important statements, but will the Leader of the House pledge to give us that half day back in the future?
Mr Lidington
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I cannot promise to give the Scottish National party that additional day. I do, though, recognise that there was pressure on the party’s limited time because of what he himself acknowledged were, by anybody’s count, two important statements. I shall reflect on that request, but he will understand that there are other pressures on the parliamentary timetable.
The hon. Gentleman asked two questions about European Union legislation. On the first, it is clear that until the Supreme Court has ruled, we do not know whether any Bill is going to be required. Nevertheless, if it is to become law, any Bill has to go through the full parliamentary process in this Chamber and in the other place—that is the only route available to change primary law in this country. I hope that gives him some reassurance. The extent to which amendments are in order clearly depends on the rules of the House and, ultimately, on the interpretation of the Chair.
On his question about the EVEL arrangements, it might be helpful if I remind the House that for any matter to be subject to those arrangements it has to meet three tests. First, it must refer to a matter that is devolved to Scotland; secondly, the legislation must refer only to England, or only to England and Wales; and, thirdly, there must be a certification from Mr Speaker that the clause, Bill or statutory instrument meets those tests. We have not yet published or determined the final shape of the Bill that will give effect to our exit from the EU—the repeal Bill—but those tests continue to be the ones that would have to be met in any case. A measure that repeals the European Communities Act 1972 clearly has UK-wide implications and would not apply only to one part of the United Kingdom.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
May I, too, wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker?
Yesterday, the all-party group on youth employment heard from several youth employment ambassadors. These young people were inspirational, but their achievements were not down to the careers advice they had received but because of their self-belief and determination. May we have a debate about how careers advice can be improved, because currently there are examples of where we are potentially letting young people down?
Mr Lidington
That sounds to me like an important issue that might well merit an airing in one of the Backbench Business Committee debates. It is an issue to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is giving close attention.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker. Forty is a difficult age, so beware. [Laughter.]
I thank the Leader of the House for notifying us of the Backbench Business on 26 January, and for confirming that there will be Backbench Business on 2 February—we have provisionally tabled a six-hour debate on the armed forces covenant for that day.
On Monday, the House adjourned at 7.40 pm, which I think was rather predictable, given the business on the day. Will the Leader of the House please consider, yet again, working with the Backbench Business Committee to schedule Backbench Business debates on such days in future? Those debates would, of course, take second place should Government business run its full course.
Will the Leader of the House also resolve a little thorny problem? We have had an application for a debate on International Women’s Day, which I am sure Members will know is on 8 March, which is when the spring statement is scheduled. Will he work with us to get a debate on International Women’s Day as close as possible to 8 March—probably beforehand, if at all possible?
Mr Lidington
I will do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman’s request on his last point.
I take seriously the problem he identifies apropos last Monday, and will see whether we can do more to accommodate it. The difficulty for Government business managers is that they are never certain until the day whether there will be urgent questions, which will take up time, or how many Members from all parts of the House will want to participate in a debate and for how long they will wish to speak. I can remember previous occasions when Backbench Business came under enormous pressure, resulting in a debate having to be abandoned or drastically curtailed, which was, understandably, immensely frustrating for Back Benchers who had altered their arrangements so that they were in their places and able to participate in the debate. The challenge is to try to strike that right balance.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the national schools funding formula, because if the proposals go ahead every single school in Southend will be worse off and Southend will be the 84th worst affected constituency out of 533?
Mr Lidington
I can understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I know that he is always a formidable and active champion of his constituents’ interests. The consultation run by the Department for Education is live now—it does not end until 22 March—so I urge him to ensure that he, on behalf of his constituents, and his constituents individually make strong representations to the consultation.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I am always willing to offer birthday congratulations to young people, Mr Speaker, be it to you or your chaplain.
Why is there constant delay and evasion in the Government bringing a motion before the House on the renewal of the parliamentary building? I know about the debate in Westminster Hall next Wednesday, but why is there the delay? Is it not essential for a decision to be reached so that, if a general election is to take place in 2020, those elected will know that they will not be sitting in this building and that the work will be carried out without Members or staff being present, which, hopefully, will mean that it will be completed in a much shorter time than if evacuation does not take place?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be in his place on his birthday, which, if memory serves, is 26 June. We look forward to that and to his undertaking his usual interrogation at that time.
Mr Lidington
I understand and share the hon. Gentleman’s wish to get on with this. As some have already said, there is the possibility of additional legislation being needed after a court ruling next week—we do not yet know whether that will be the case—but there is pressure on Government time. I hope that we can come forward with a clear date as soon as possible.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In addition to your birthday today, Mr Speaker, there was, last week, the slightly less illustrious 70th anniversary of Crawley being declared a new town. I appreciate that it is obviously for Her Majesty to confer city status, but will the Leader of the House speak to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to see what process Crawley can initiate to explore that possibility?
Mr Lidington
I am happy to pass that request on to the Secretary of State, and I think that the whole House will congratulate the people and the civic leaders of Crawley on that achievement and their work over the decades in building a thriving and successful community.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that community pharmacies are a very important part of taking the pressure off over-stretched A&Es at the moment, despite them seeing cuts to their funding just last month. The Government have introduced a pharmacy access scheme to help deal with some of the cuts in communities. I was really surprised to see that, in the Prime Minister’s constituency, 37% of pharmacies will be able to apply for that additional funding. In the three Hull constituencies, only 1% of pharmacies will be able to apply. May we please have a debate about why the most disadvantaged communities still suffer the biggest cuts from this Government?
Mr Lidington
I clearly do not know the details of the situation in Hull, but I am happy to ask the relevant Health Minister—I think it is my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—to write to the hon. Lady. The principle is that there are now 15% more pharmacies than there were just a decade ago, two fifths of pharmacies are within 10 minutes’ walk of two or more other pharmacies, the average pharmacy receives roughly £220,000 a year in NHS funding and, even after the recently announced changes, the community pharmacy budget will be 30% more than it was a decade ago, so I think that the Government have demonstrated that they remain committed to community pharmacies and their importance.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
For disabled people, achieving a job can be a life-changing experience. Last Friday, I was privileged to promote a This-Ability event in Cleethorpes to encourage local employers to take on more disabled people. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Lorraine Alexander and her team from Grimsby jobcentre, who did a great deal of work to stage the event, as well as all the voluntary and charitable groups? Can we find time to debate the role of and opportunities for disabled people in the workplace?
Mr Lidington
I am very happy to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents on this successful event. It has been an important step forward that we now have a record number of people with disabilities in work. I am the first to acknowledge that more still needs to be done, but I am heartened by the fact that we are making progress and that local enthusiasm, such as that which my hon. Friend describes, is helping to highlight those opportunities for people with disabilities.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
In contrast to just about every one of his predecessors for the past 30 years, the Leader of the House shows no inclination to defend the wider interests of the House as opposed merely to progressing Government business; his disgraceful treatment of the Bill on parliamentary boundaries is a case in point. A parliamentary Committee—a Select Committee—has unanimously recommended a White Paper before the invocation of article 50, so what representations did he make to secure that in the wider interests of the House, as opposed to a prime ministerial statement that was not even made in this place, motionless debates or a one-clause Bill that will be rammed through like some sort of thief in the night? Will he indicate to the House that he sees his job as securing effective parliamentary scrutiny of a major constitutional decision, however long it might take?
Mr Lidington
I am absolutely committed to full parliamentary scrutiny of this matter. Indeed, I had the delight of appearing for the first time in my current role before the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday to give evidence on one aspect of that subject. The right hon. Gentleman makes some incorrect assumptions about the role of the Leader of the House apropos individual Select Committee reports. It is for Select Committees individually to come to their view and make recommendations to Government, and it is then primarily for the Department to which those recommendations are addressed to recommend to Government colleagues what the response should be. There is a collectively approved Government response to that Select Committee report and if the right hon. Gentleman believes that any Government of any political colour is likely to agree with absolutely ever recommendation of every Select Committee, I do not think that he has read many Select Committee reports or Government responses to them over the years. It is a perfectly fair and transparent way of conducting business and of Governments responding to Select Committee recommendations.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
With the decision of the Backbench Business Committee not to schedule a debate on settlements and the destruction yesterday of Umm al-Hiran, is there a possibility of a Government statement on what appears to be a significant shift in Government policy over recent days as we cosy up to the incoming American Administration in granting complete impunity to Israel?
Mr Lidington
The Government’s policy on Israel and Palestine has not changed. We remain committed to a two-state solution, involving a sovereign, independent viable Palestinian state living alongside Israel, with mutually agreed land swaps where appropriate and with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states. Our view on the settlements remains that they are illegal in international law, and that is at the heart of the United Kingdom’s policy.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for putting me right earlier. I should have realised, on reflection, that he would never write such an extreme speech as that which came out of the Prime Minister’s mouth the other day.
On the matter of flood-hit communities, not least mine in Cumbria after the devastating floods in December 2015, will there be time for a debate on Government financial support for those communities, in particular in the light of the Government’s decision in recent days to spend the entire amount of the £15 million we have now got for the December floodings from the European solidarity fund not on giving support to the communities that it was for, but on paying off a historical fine incurred in 2007 by a previous Government? Whoever’s fault it was that that fine was incurred, for certain it was not the fault of communities such as mine in Cumbria. Will the Leader of the House commit to all that money coming to those communities or at the very least to hold a debate on the matter?
Mr Lidington
An Adjournment debate is probably the best way forward on that issue, as it affects the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. In fairness, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers have worked with Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers to make sure that the Bellwin money has been made available more rapidly than has sometimes been the case in the past when communities have been badly hit by floods. I will look into his particular point about the European solidarity fund money, since I am not sighted on that, and I or one of the DEFRA Ministers will write to him about it.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Nene Park was once the home of Rushden and Diamonds football club and is still a fully usable football stadium, but the demolition notices have been issued. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging the owners to sit down with the local authority, AFC Rushden and Diamonds football club and the community to have one last look at whether a solution can be found that retains all or part of the stadium, because once it is gone, it is gone? May we have a statement next week on those matters?
Mr Lidington
That strikes me as a natural Adjournment debate opportunity, but I very much hope that the sporting and other organisations locally in Corby can come together and find a way in which to maintain a clearly much-loved community sports facility.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Notwithstanding that many of us were disappointed with the result of the referendum, we recognise that the people have spoken. Nevertheless, it is not just for the Government to decide the detail; it is very important that this House gets a proper say. In response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and other Members, the Leader of the House indicated that there will be ample opportunity for debate. Will he be more specific about how many days this House will get to debate and influence the Government’s thinking on how we progress the negotiations, so that businesses and our constituents who are very concerned have their views aired in this House, and we can reflect the views of the people about how this will go ahead?
Mr Lidington
As the hon. Lady knows, there have been a number of debates already on particular aspects of our leaving the European Union. I fully expect that there will be other such debates related to additional specific topics in the months to come. Whatever does or does not happen next week, we will have a Bill in the new parliamentary Session to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. That will provide plenty of opportunities as well. At my last count, more than 30 different Select Committee inquiries into different aspects of our leaving the EU were being conducted by Committees either of this place or of the House of Lords. Of course, mechanisms exist to bring those Select Committee reports to the Floor of the House for debate as well.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In this week, of all weeks, it is absolutely right that we say in the House of Commons that we want to proceed with the building of a Holocaust memorial museum. As the Leader of the House is responsible, at least in part, for the environs of the Palace of Westminster, does he accept that there may be merit in a debate on the siting of the museum? There is a view among many people that the best place for the museum would be within or outside the Imperial War Museum, so that its many visitors can see the link between the Holocaust and war and hatred, rather than siting it in Victoria Tower Gardens, which is one of the last green spaces around this Palace and visited by many hundreds of thousands of people each year. As the museum will be two storeys underground, there might also be a flood risk. There is a need for a debate on the siting of the museum.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend may well want to seek a Westminster Hall debate on the subject. The previous Prime Minister gave a commitment to the Victoria Tower Gardens site, and that has been reiterated by the current Prime Minister. Ultimately, the planning matters to which my hon. Friend alluded will be the responsibility of Westminster City Council.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Warm congratulations, Mr Speaker, as you approach the prime of life and the halfway point of your Speakership. You may be surprised to know that for all but two of your 54 years, Severn bridge users have been ripped off by the bridges being used as a cash cow. They have suffered double taxation, paying for the national road system and the local tolls. Can that rip-off now be ended as the bridges come into public control? It would be an immense benefit for accessibility on both sides of the Severn.
Mr Lidington
I have sometimes heard Welsh people say, “You have to pay to come to Wales, because it is such a privilege to visit, whereas everybody wants to get back to England in a hurry.”
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House want to start again?
Mr Lidington
No, no—they say it in the nicest possible way—[Interruption.] The point that perhaps I did not make clearly enough is that my interlocutors say to me, “If you tried to charge people to get back into England, they would want to stay in Wales and never leave.”
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made a serious point, which I will take up with Transport Ministers. The tolls help to pay for the cost of the crossings and that is important, but I will get the relevant Transport Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give careful consideration to the time allocated to questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union? We have only 30 minutes for oral questions and 10 minutes for topical questions to those Departments. Given the current relevance of them and their Select Committees, more time needs to be allocated. Will the Leader of the House give that consideration?
Mr Lidington
I am happy to give consideration to that proposal and to discuss it through the usual channels, because such matters are agreed by consensus if possible. However, if we add time to questions to those Departments, one of two things has to happen. Either we take time off other Departments or we extend the cycle of departmental Question Times to six weeks, rather than five, which leaves a longer gap before hon. Members have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State from any one Department.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
This week saw the release of the damning National Audit Office report on the Concentrix scandal that demonstrated institutional incompetence and neglect at the heart of all the agencies involved. The vast majority of victims have not received compensation. I have written to the Prime Minister, asking her urgently to intervene in the matter, and I hope that the Leader of the House will support me in that endeavour.
We really must have a debate in the House about the scandal, because people who are receiving money that they should have had in the first place are getting it in instalments, as opposed to in one lump sum, which affects their ability to claim other benefits to which they are rightly entitled. We would like an opportunity to tell Ministers how much our constituents are being affected, so that justice can be done. This is an embarrassing situation for the Government which requires immediate rectification.
Mr Lidington
We are very clear that the service provided by Concentrix was poor, and it was right that the contract was scrapped. HMRC has apologised, and it knows that it has to learn some lessons from that contract and what happened there. When it became clear that Concentrix’s customer service issues could not be rectified by Concentrix, HMRC took back 181,000 incomplete cases, and rightly redeployed hundreds of its own staff to deal with this work. All those cases were finalised by 3 November. HMRC has then also had to deal with mandatory reconsideration requests, of which 36,000 have been received, and it has allocated additional staff to that work so that requests can be dealt with quickly and payments restored where claimants are entitled to them. There may be an opportunity for a Back-Bench or Westminster Hall debate on this issue, further to the airing it has already had in this Chamber, but I think HMRC was right to give priority to the incomplete cases and to deal with those first. It is now proceeding as rapidly as it can to sort out the remaining mandatory reconsideration requests.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Can we have a debate on dementia? I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Incommunities—the social housing provider for Bradford, which is based in my constituency—on training its staff to support residents with dementia. In such a debate, we could encourage other organisations to do the same. We could also find out what more the Government could do to help people who suffer from dementia—an estimated 6,500 people in the Bradford district are affected by it—and what further support could be given to their families, who have the difficult job of caring for them.
Mr Lidington
I hope my hon. Friend will have that opportunity, perhaps in Westminster Hall. I add my salute to those groups and individuals in his constituency, and in many others, who have highlighted the challenges posed by dementia and worked not only to encourage more people to become dementia friends but to ensure that we treat people living with dementia with the respect and dignity to which they are entitled and that they get the solidarity and support from their fellow citizens that they are entitled to expect.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can we have a debate on bravery? In March 1936, a young gay Conservative Member of Parliament, Captain Jack Macnamara, visited the Rhineland to celebrate its remilitarisation, because he was then a supporter of Hitler. But while he was there, he visited the first concentration camp, Dachau, and he saw such horrific violence to Jews and homosexuals that, when he came back here, he campaigned relentlessly against anti-Semitism and appeasement. He raised those matters in this Chamber, but he was spat at when he went to the Carlton Club that night. He was killed in action in the second world war, on 22 December 1944, and his shield is on the wall of this Chamber. Do we not owe a debt of gratitude to such people, and should we not be doing everything in our power to put an end to anti-Semitism and prejudice in our era? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Mr Lidington
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman said. The tribute he has just paid was a most appropriate one as we come towards Holocaust Memorial Day.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I hesitate to spoil your good humour on such a day, Mr Speaker, but you will be aware that Tottenham Hotspur is rebuilding White Hart Lane, and, as a result, we have to find a new home. The current proposal is that Tottenham will use Wembley stadium for a season, which will increase the use of our national stadium by 60%. There is an important issue for my constituency, which becomes the car park for Wembley stadium on event days. Worse still, Chelsea football club intends to come to Wembley for three years thereafter. May we have a debate in Government time on the uses to which our national stadium can be put, so that we can put on record our concerns about the potential abuse of our national treasure?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend has put his constituents’ concerns on the record most effectively, but there may be an Adjournment debate opportunity if he wishes to pursue the matter further.
Mr Speaker
I gently make the point that the Emirates is a very, very, very special place in London.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems appropriate, Mr Speaker, that today we have not only an amazing exhibition of photographs in the Attlee Room on Syria and Aleppo by William Wintercross, a brilliant photographer—I hope people will be able to see it—but a debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. May we also, on this special day, think about having a debate on a report that came out, I believe, in July 2008—it was called the Bercow report—on children and young people? Owing to cuts to local government up and down this country, young people are in dreadful danger, because child protection is becoming very difficult to maintain. May we have a debate on the Bercow report so that we can see what progress has been made since those good recommendations?
Mr Lidington
I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but the hon. Gentleman can make a submission to the Backbench Committee.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As it is a double birthday today, Mr Speaker, may we have a pair of statements: one on the long-term future of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, two of the most versatile and essential ships in the Royal Navy, whose future is threatened by a shortfall in the defence budget; and another on offering at least the same level of legislative protection to our veterans who served in Northern Ireland as is currently offered to the terrorists who fought against the welfare of the community that the veterans fought to defend?
Mr Lidington
On my right hon. Friend’s second point, the Northern Ireland Secretary has already said that he feels considerable disquiet at some of the reports of proposed prosecutions, and he is working very actively to try to secure agreement within Northern Ireland to legislate on the legacy of the troubles in a way that settles that issue as well as a number of others. On his point about the two naval vessels, I will ask the relevant Defence Minister to contact him about the detail.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Airdrie Savings Bank, the UK’s last independent savings bank, is to end all business activities after 182 years, with the loss of 70 jobs. Secured loans and mortgages will be transferred to the TSB, and customers will be helped to find alternative banking providers. As Unite the union has said,
“Airdrie Savings Bank has become yet another innocent victim of casino bankers.”
May we have a debate in Government time to discuss the state of UK banking?
Mr Lidington
Although I completely understand the concerns of the hon. Lady and those of her constituents who have accounts at the bank about the loss of this historic institution, the most important thing is that their savings are protected and that a banking service that is accessible to them remains in being. We have seen over the years a number of mergers of different banks and building societies. We have also seen a shift towards many, many more customers making use of online banking. Those factors are going to drive change, but having the service available is the key thing that we need to make sure is preserved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Happy birthday, Sir.
May I thank my right hon. Friend for providing time quickly for the approval of the name of the candidate for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which was approved by the Health Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday?
As we have already heard, Tuesday 24 January is the day on which the Supreme Court is delivering its judgment. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be expedient for the Government to plan to make a statement immediately on the future implications for business, even if a substantive statement on the longer-term implications of such a judgment will need to be made at a later date?
Mr Lidington
Clearly, I and other Ministers will want to brief Parliament fully on the substance and implications of the judgment once we know what it is. We do not yet know either its content or its complexity, and we are unlikely to get any prior knowledge—at most, it would be very brief—of what that judgment contains. I cannot make a promise today about the specific timing, but the principle at the heart of my hon. Friend’s question is one that I completely endorse.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we have a debate on the future of the Crown post office network? Crown post offices break even, unlike the post office network as a whole, and yet the Government are forcing through a change programme that puts at risk of closure scores of post offices across the country, including the one in Ulverston in my constituency. We need a guarantee that those services will stay. Can we have a debate about it, please?
Mr Lidington
The key point is that the services remain, whether they are carried out in a Crown post office or whether they are continued in a sub-post office. The sub-post office network provides post office services to the overwhelming majority of our constituents throughout the country. I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Ulverston will continue to get that service. The experience in my constituency, where the Crown post office closed, is that those services continued but at a different location. That surely has to be the objective.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Many happy returns for today, Mr Speaker.
As chair of the all-party disability group, I am extremely concerned by reports that disabled people are much less likely to be able to access affordable credit, and that they are therefore being plunged into the hands of payday lenders and loan sharks. Can we have a debate on equitable access to affordable credit, so that we can ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not left open to financial exploitation?
Mr Lidington
I cannot offer an immediate debate. The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, and I think that the banking industry has a social responsibility to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities, to people on low incomes and to others who often find it quite difficult to get access to conventional banking. That perhaps needs something of a cultural shift.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate, before the Budget, on school funding? Across the country, many schools face a real crisis in their budgets over the next few years. Teachers are going to be sacked and per-pupil spending is going to go down. By 2019, Nottinghamshire County Council will lose £40 million. It is not good enough. Schools deserve better, and so do the children of this country.
Mr Lidington
Of course, the Government have had to take some very difficult spending decisions as a result of the need to continue to reduce the inherited deficit. I am pleased that the Government have, despite that difficult fiscal environment, been able to protect the core schools budget. The money that is going to be paid to schools, coupled with the rise in pupil numbers that we are expecting, should ensure that for most schools—depending on whether they are gaining or losing pupils—the overall core schools budget is protected in cash terms.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I declare an interest as a crofter on the Isle of Skye? On 23 November last year, the Minister with responsibility for farming stated during Question Time that we would have a review of the allocations of the convergence uplift funding before the end of the year. I tabled a written question, to which I had a reply yesterday indicating that an update will be provided shortly. This is unacceptable. Can the Leader of the House make sure that the Minister makes a statement on the urgent review of the convergence funding? This is an important matter for crofters and farmers throughout the highlands and islands. Some €223 million euros of funding was given to this Government on the understanding that it would go to those in most need of it, and that has not happened.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman raised exactly that point during the debate on the rural economy on Tuesday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs replied to him that she recognised his point, that she continues to look closely at the issue and that,
“I will keep him up to date with progress on it.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 835.]
He has had a clear undertaking from the Secretary of State and he has reinforced his point.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Twice this week, I have raised my constituents’ concerns about cuts to council services and Ministers have simply swatted them aside. Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to address those concerns and demonstrate that the Government are taking seriously the impact of Tory cuts on local people?
Mr Lidington
I accept that we have confirmed a settlement for local councils that is flat in cash terms, but we have also delivered what local authorities were asking for in certainty over a four-year funding period. We are planning legislation, which will be before Parliament soon, that will enable local government to keep all the business rates that it collects by the end of the Parliament. We have provided the power for local councils to levy a social care precept to help them with the challenges that they undoubtedly face in dealing with social care.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The terms of your earlier statement, Mr Speaker, mean that “happy birthday” is not a mere wish but an observation of fact. In passing, may I mention yesterday’s landmark 80th birthday of landmark statesman, John Hume, the pathfinder for our peace process?
Will the Leader of the House talk to Northern Ireland Office and Treasury Ministers to clarify that there is legitimate locus for the House, its Ministers and Committees in the renewable heat incentive debacle in Northern Ireland? There is no basis for pretending that the dimensions of abuse in the uptake of that scheme are confined to devolved expenditure and do not involve the annually managed expenditure from the Treasury. There is also a question about a period when the regulations for the scheme had run out, spending continued and it was not covered by the Northern Ireland budget. Did Treasury funding cover it in the period when there was no regulatory basis for that spending?
Mr Lidington
First, I join the hon. Gentleman in sending belated birthday wishes to John Hume. We all salute the heroic role that he played in helping to start and drive through the peace process in Northern Ireland.
On the renewable heat incentive scheme, the Northern Ireland scheme is fully devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and is now the subject of an open inquiry by the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee. It is therefore in their remit to investigate it. The scheme in Great Britain has budget management mechanisms in place to stop the sort of overspending that was experienced in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that Treasury money was in some way involved in supporting the Northern Ireland scheme and that money was misplaced, I urge him to write with the details to Treasury Ministers and I am sure that they will respond.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Like many Members—and, I am sure, the Leader of the House—I have been appalled by the Foreign Secretary’s crass comments. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has three options: she can sack him, gag him or educate him. If she decides to educate him, can the whole House have a role in that process?
Mr Lidington
When I think of our relationship with France, I think about how we stood with the free French forces and the resistance fighters against Nazism; how we and France stood together against Soviet tyranny; and the very active work that we carry out with France today against international terrorism. We look for a relationship after we leave the European Union that enables us to build on those historical strengths and to continue to work as active, complementary partners on a whole range of issues.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Yesterday in Scottish questions, I counted 13 non-Scottish-based MPs asking questions of the Scottish Secretary and only 10 Scottish-based MPs. Was that not a rather humiliating exercise in circling the wagons to save the Scottish Secretary from being scalped? May we have a debate on how to make the Secretary of State for Scotland answer to Scotland?
Mr Lidington
The Secretary of State for Scotland, like every other Secretary of State, answers to the House of Commons. It has always been the case that it is open to Members from any part of the United Kingdom to participate in questions to any Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman’s party frequently complains about arrangements for English votes for English laws. It strikes me as a wee bit odd for him now to complain if Members from other parts of the UK want to ask questions of the Scottish Secretary of State.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On 16 December, Elton post office in my constituency closed without warning. Elton is a rural village and it is not easy for its residents to travel elsewhere. I understand that the closure was unavoidable, but we have no clear timetable for the reopening of the post office. May we have a debate on what more can be done to speed up the reopening of post offices in such situations?
Mr Lidington
This may be an Adjournment debate opportunity for the hon. Gentleman. I know from my own experience that the reasons for delay are various. Sometimes it is not easy to get a new manager to take over a franchise and operate the sub-post office. I hope very much for his constituents’ sake that the sub-post office is able to reopen as swiftly as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Samir Chamek, a Christian convert from Islam, was accused of insulting the Prophet by republishing pictures and comments on Facebook, and arrested by the cybercrime unit in Algeria. He was given the maximum punishment for blasphemy under the Algerian penal code of five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 dinars. On 8 January, a court of appeal upheld his conviction and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. May we have a statement on how we can encourage Algeria and other nations to repeal their blasphemy laws?
Mr Lidington
I do not know the details of this particular case, but my view and the Government’s view is that we should champion religious freedom everywhere in the world. We pride ourselves on being a plural society that respects people of different faiths and no faith. That view of the world and those values influence our foreign policy, and will continue to do so.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Every weekend, parkrun volunteers make it possible for thousands of people across the country to take part in 5 km runs. I myself completed the Cwmbran parkrun on Christmas eve. May we have a debate on the contribution parkrun makes to our communities, and to health and wellbeing all over the country?
Mr Lidington
I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those who organise parkrun. I myself completed the Aylesbury run. Parkrun is remarkable as a demonstration of how a voluntary grassroots initiative can help not just to get people more active, but to change attitudes towards activity by making people, who have perhaps been very shy of getting involved in organised sports, feel that they are welcome to come along and participate.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Debating with this Government, who have forsaken all reason on Brexit, is proving to be a bit like administering medicine to the dead. None the less, may we have a debate in Government time on Scotland’s place in Europe?
Mr Lidington
I think Scotland’s place in Europe is going to be prosperous and secure through its continued membership of a United Kingdom which, while it leaves the European Union, will be forging a new partnership on trade, security and co-operation against crime that will work to the benefit of everybody in Scotland, as well as everybody else in the United Kingdom.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has previously told me and the House that the reason the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), which deals with constituency boundaries, could not proceed to Committee was that it did not have a money resolution attached. I have just finished serving on the Homelessness Reduction Bill Committee, and that Bill went to Committee without such a resolution—in fact, we did not get one until the last week of the Committee. Why is it one rule for one Bill and another rule for another, and when will the boundaries Bill go into Committee?
Mr Lidington
I am not in a position to announce anything further about that Bill.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Clydesdale bank’s latest tranche of bank closures includes the one in Giffnock, in my constituency, which has already been disproportionately affected by bank closures. As well as causing difficulties for our high streets, it is particularly problematic for people less able to get about, and the bank’s wilful disregard for any form of consultation is frankly shameful. Can we have a debate in Government time on the latest Clydesdale bank closures and on the role and responsibilities of high street banks?
Mr Lidington
It is right that the banks stick to their own code, which requires that particular attention be paid when the last banking outlet in a community is scheduled for closure, but these are independent businesses facing a future in which many of their customers are choosing to bank online rather than in person at a local branch. It is a challenge for them to get the balance right and to ensure that everybody in the hon. Lady’s constituency has the access to banking services that they need.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The Government have commissioned a report on electoral fraud, but what we actually need is a review of the behaviour of political parties during election periods and the punishments available. The Lib Dems were fined £20,000 for non-declaration of £200,000 of spending—money down the drain, by the way—Labour was also fined £20,000 and there are investigations into the Leader of the House’s own party. The Electoral Commission has said that a fine of £20,000 is no longer a strong enough deterrent to ensure that the rules are properly followed. Can we have a debate on that in Government time and take a serious look at the punishments available?
Mr Lidington
We have an independent, investigative and legal system that can look into political parties and ensure that expenses are checked, but I have to say that for Members of the Scottish National party to give lectures about good practice during election campaigning is a bit rich. There are plenty of independent-minded journalists who very much resented the bullying to which they were subjected during the last Scottish election campaign and referendum.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Just before the Christmas recess, I served on a European Committee on asylum that had two glaring problems: first, all the deadlines involved had already passed, and secondly, the House had decided on the motion before the Committee the previous week. What steps is the Leader of the House taking to ensure that nothing like this happens again?
Mr Lidington
I dealt with this matter in some detail in my evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday. There was an error on the Government’s part in the handling of that business, for which an apology was given to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and steps have now been taken to ensure that there is no repetition.
Point of Order
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance regarding the response I got from the Leader of the House earlier. On 23 November, the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), said,
“we will provide an update on the review of CAP allocations before the end of this year.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 884.]
We have had no such announcement from the Government. If these remarks are to mean anything, what powers do Back Benchers have to compel the Minister to give a fair and honest response regarding his promise of an update on the review of the convergence uplift money? These are important matters. We are talking about money that should be in the pockets of crofters and farmers in Scotland, but once again we have not got it. On behalf of my constituents, I say that this is not good enough.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that the recourse available to him—and, I am afraid, the only recourse available to him—is his own quality of persistence. The hon. Gentleman must use the opportunities afforded by the Order Paper, and, indeed, those that he is able to create for himself through the tabling of further questions.
As the hon. Gentleman says, those matters are extremely important. However, I have no reason to believe that, at the time when the Minister said that an update would be provided by the end of the year, he intended anything other than to meet that deadline. It has not been uncommon, under successive Governments of all colours, in this country and around the world, for there to be slippage. Where there is slippage, it is not a matter of order for the Chair; it is a matter for a perspicacious Back-Bench Member to continue to raise. The hon. Gentleman has many qualities, one of which is his perspicacity.
Backbench Business
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kashmir
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the escalation in violence and breaches of international human rights on the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kashmir; calls on the Government to raise the matter at the United Nations; and further calls on the Government to encourage Pakistan and India to commence peace negotiations to establish a long-term solution on the future governance of Kashmir based on the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions.
Let me start by thanking my fellow members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to stand down from the Committee briefly in order to apply for the debate, and for agreeing that it could take place today. I should also declare that I am the current chairman of the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group.
I thank all the groups who have campaigned so steadfastly on this issue for so many years. I particularly thank Raja Najabat Hussain of the Jammu and Kashmir Self Determination Movement, who works tirelessly to keep up the profile of the issue of Kashmir with MPs, but I also thank Fahim Kayani and the Kashmir Movement UK, Sabiya Khan and the British Muslim Women’s Forum, Azmat Khan of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, Najib Afsar and the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Council, and Dr Syed Nazir Gilani and the Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. May I ask him also to put on record his thanks to all the ordinary Kashmiris, in this country and back in Kashmir, who fight time and again, in a peaceful manner, to ensure that this issue is high on the agenda so that we take some action?
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I certainly put my thanks to those people on record.
Let me explain why the motion was tabled. Essentially, it was tabled because this issue matters to thousands of my constituents who are of Pakistani and Kashmiri heritage, and I know that it matters to the constituents of a number of other Members who are present today. Many of my constituents have families in Kashmir, and in some cases they have personally lost loved ones, or seen loved ones scarred for life as a result of violence.
Some Members may not be familiar with Kashmir. It is an area of territory that runs across the border between Pakistan and India. The root causes of the conflict can be traced back to 1947, when the colony of India was granted independence by Britain and was partitioned into two separate entities, India and Pakistan. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, with a predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu leader, shared borders with both India and West Pakistan.
The area has a long and complex history. Obviously there is not enough time for me to go into all of it, but suffice it to say that the argument over which nation would incorporate the state led to the first India-Pakistan war, in 1947-48, and there have been several further upsurges in the conflict since then. I do not need to remind the House that both countries are now nuclear powers. Just to complicate matters further, some of the historic territory of Kashmir is now under the control of China.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the Minister for south Asia, in his place and I am grateful to him for taking the time recently to meet members of the all-party group on Kashmir. I know he will be aware that the fact that Britain was responsible for the partition leads many in the Kashmiri community to believe this country could and should be doing more to try and help resolve this matter. The fact that partition was 70 years ago demonstrates the intransigence of this problem, and I am under no illusion that there are any easy solutions.
I wish to cover two areas: the recent increase in violence and human rights abuses, and the longer-term issue of trying to resolve this long-running conflict. The most recent increase in violence began last year when, on 8 July, 22-year-old Burhan Wani was killed by the security forces in Indian-administered Kashmir. Tens of thousands attended his funeral, at which clashes broke out between the security forces and protestors. Security forces fired live ammunition into the crowd, killing several people and a police officer was also killed.
Since then the authorities have declared a succession of curfews and closed down mobile phone services and media outlets. Attendance at mosques and adherence to religious practices has been restricted. Protestors have organised a series of general strikes and there have been regular public rallies. Schools, colleges and universities have also been closed. The economy has been badly hit. Funerals have often led to further clashes between protestors and the security forces. Critically, scores of Kashmiris have been killed and many thousands of civilians have been seriously injured.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. He rightly points out the recent escalation in human rights violations, but does he agree this is a much longer-term problem and that human rights violations have happened in that region for decades?
Mr Nuttall
As I have said, there is a long and complex history to this issue and, as the hon. Gentleman says, there have been many upsurges in violence over the years and many human rights abuses that have been catalogued and recorded.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that an international investigation into those human rights abuses is carried out as soon as possible?
Mr Nuttall
Yes, I do agree, and that is something I will mention briefly later in my speech.
The use of pellet guns has left thousands of people, including children, injured and in many cases blind. Armed militants have increased their attacks on the security forces. In September 2016 an attack on an army base killed 19 Indian soldiers, the army’s worst loss of life for well over a decade. There has also been a serious flaring up of tension between India and Pakistan, with regular exchanges between their forces along the line of control. These have led to significant military casualties. Senior figures on both sides have been ratcheting up the hostile rhetoric, leading to growing fears of another major escalation in the conflict between the two countries.
I know the Government are concerned about any allegation of human rights abuses—Ministers have said so many times in answer to both oral and written questions—but I urge the Minister to condemn the attacks and the use of pellet guns. The fundamental human rights that are enshrined in the Indian constitution must be adhered to. There must be an end to the use of pellet guns on innocent civilians. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other interested parties must be allowed free and complete access so that they can make an objective assessment.
I turn now to the role of the United Nations in securing a long-term settlement. There has been 70 years of inaction since the original resolutions requiring the conflict to be resolved by peaceful democratic means were passed, so it is easy to see why so many in the Kashmiri community think that the United Nations has lost interest in their problem. I have often said that the dispute is all too frequently ignored by the media. There is always some other conflict elsewhere in the world that grabs the headlines. I know that the United Kingdom, as a member of the United Nations, supports all UN bodies and wants to help them to fulfil their mandate, but there has surely been a failure on Kashmir if the resolutions have gone unfulfilled for so long. I appreciate that the Government have to tread a careful path and that we want to be friends with both India and Pakistan, but a candid and true friend is one who sometimes says things that the other friend may find unpalatable.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I support my hon. Friend’s motion. This is not a question of supporting either the Indian Government or the Pakistani Government; it is about supporting the people of Kashmir. He and I campaigned for many years for a referendum to decide whether our country should be part of and governed by the European Union, and the people of Kashmir should be afforded the same liberty of deciding how they want to be governed in future.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a few lines’ time, I will mention the historic decision that this country took on 23 June last year.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I concur with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that this issue is about Kashmir, but it involves not just India and Pakistan, but China, so we have to concentrate on all of them to ensure that the civil and human rights of the Kashmiri are the priority in this debate.
Mr Nuttall
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the matter involves more than one nation and, crucially, is about the rights of the Kashmiri people.
We have to make it clear to both India and Pakistan that we want to help them find a permanent, peaceful solution to the conflict. Of course, this country cannot impose a solution, but we may be able to do more to bring the parties closer together. I want to be absolutely clear that this is not about taking sides and saying, “If you are a friend of Kashmir, you are not a friend of India.” The problem must be resolved by peaceful means. I want the people of Kashmir to be given the right to decide their own future through self-determination, a right which was so historically exercised by the people of this country on 23 June last year when a majority voted to leave the European Union.
No one believes that there is an easy answer, but anything has to be better than having a military-controlled line of partition between the two neighbouring countries. I suspect that there will always be a rivalry between India and Pakistan, but that rivalry should be contained on the field of sport. In responding to the debate, I ask the Minister to set out not only the Government’s position on Kashmir, but what more this country can do.
Robert Flello
While I agree that we need a long-term solution that is in the hands of the Kashmiri people, does he agree that there is an important step to be taken beforehand? The Foreign Office and the Government can play an active role in getting both sides round a table to negotiate peace, stability and a calming of the situation, so that children’s lives are not ruined or lost in the meantime. Let us get a summit for peace going and then we can focus on the longer-term solution.
Mr Nuttall
I entirely agree. Perhaps I should have finished my sentence, because that is exactly what I was saying. I ask the Minister to set out not only the Government’s position on Kashmir but what more this country can do, either through the United Nations or by working directly with India and Pakistan, to bring the two nations together to find a lasting and peaceful solution to this conflict.
I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I declare that I am privileged to be the first Member of Parliament of Kashmiri heritage. I also have a significant number of Kashmiri constituents, who have a significant interest in this issue. I am sure that many other Members have been contacted by constituents with such an interest.
The key issues when discussing Kashmir are Kashmiri geography and Kashmiri self-determination, and many people are very concerned about that. For me, the key issue today is the violation of the human rights and civil liberties of the Kashmiri people—that is the most important thing. There have been violations of the Geneva convention by Indian armed forces.
As other Members have said, Kashmiris are having their human rights violated and abused. That has gone on for at least the past six decades, since Indian forces unlawfully invaded Kashmir in 1948. Kashmir was then an independent state under the reign of Maharaja Hari Singh. In 1953-54, a resolution was presented to the United Nations by the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, to allow the Kashmiri people the right of self-determination. To date, to the shame of the United Nations, such resolutions have not found their way to the General Assembly. People still wonder—certainly the Kashmiris are still wondering—whether the plight of the Kashmiris is worth its salt; it certainly seems not to be worth hearing in the General Assembly of the United Nations. That is very significant.
A number of Members wish to speak, so I will try to be as brief as possible. I recognise the work of the shadow Foreign Office team, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who has responsibility for south-east Asia, and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). They have both made recognising human rights and civil liberties a significant policy issue for the Labour party. The shadow Secretary of State has written to the Foreign Secretary, ahead of his second visit to India, asking him to raise the issue of human rights and civil liberties in Kashmir when he discusses trade. I hope that, on his return, he will report to the House that he has raised those issues with the Indian Government.
There are currently more than 500,000 Indian troops in Kashmir, and they are protected by the Armed Forces (Jammu & Kashmir) Special Power Act 1990, which allows them complete free rein to abuse and torture people. There is no accountability when people go missing, and there is no court in India than can hold Indian troops to account. It is a clear violation of the Geneva convention for any military to be able to do such things, and I am surprised that we still do not raise it. I hope the Minister takes note and raises it with the Indian Government.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this debate, and I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) on their powerful speeches. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular concern about the use of pellet guns in Kashmir? Does he agree with me and Amnesty International that there should be a ban on the use of such guns, which are causing such serious injuries to so many people?
Mr Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will deal with that issue later in my speech, but I wholly agree with what she is saying.
I was talking about half a million soldiers in Kashmir who have no control over how they behave and how they abuse the people. There are serious concerns in Kashmir, particularly about the situation of the civilian population. We are very concerned that when a woman leaves the house, whether she be a mother, a daughter or a wife, we do not know what state she will return in—if indeed she will return at all. There have been gang rapes by the military—an absolutely atrocious act by any individual or community.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt such an incredibly passionate speech. One thing the Government fail to recognise is the passion, worry and fear that our constituents, British citizens of Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri extraction, have about this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister and the Government really need to listen and start paying attention to the needs and demands of their citizens?
Mr Mahmood
I wholly concur with my hon. Friend, who makes a very valid point, particularly on the issue of the abuse of women. We do not allow and accept that in any way at home or in any other country, so why should we allow it to go unchecked when we are talking about the Indian forces in India and in Kashmir? Why should this be allowed to continue? I find it absurd and we should be making far stronger representations—I urge the Minister to do that.
When a man goes out of a house, whether he be a father, a husband or a son, there is no guarantee that he will come back and what state he will come back in. We have seen beatings taking place. We have seen videos on YouTube, Facebook and other social media of people being summarily beaten up in the streets—they are held by a disproportionate number of military personnel and beaten to within an inch of their life. They are tortured and taken away; people go missing. In some instances, when they go missing, they do not come back. That is a serious issue.
Children in Kashmir have no stake in their normal community or society. We expect our children to have a proper education in normal society, but Kashmiri children do not have an ounce of the protection needed in order to have that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, when they go out into the streets they are greeted with pellets and such like. They have no proper education facilities and no healthcare. They have no real stake in the society that they are part of, and the generations go forward: this is the sixth generation of Kashmiris growing up under this tyranny and they have no protection whatsoever.
The pellet gun issue that my hon. Friend raised is about a horrendous act by the military. They have not just fired these guns to warn off crowds; they have specifically targeted the upper body of individuals. They have aimed at the face and at the eyes, and a number of people have lost their eyesight. Aiming these guns at the upper body means that people cannot even receive medical treatment, because the medical people will not use a scan on them as magnets are used when a body is scanned and so a scan would further assist the movement of the metallic pellets inside the person. That might lead to further injury, be it in their head, eyes or upper body, including their heart, arteries and so on. That would cause a significant problem for most people.
Those are the issues involved with the use of pellet guns. When someone is penetrated by these pellets and they go through a security barrier, it is easy to assess that they have been involved in these sorts of activities and so they will be pulled out, again to be held accountable. We are talking about torture of a whole community and of a whole society. A report entitled “BURIED EVIDENCE: Unknown, Unmarked, and Mass Graves in Indian-Administered Kashmir” has been produced by the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir. It was written by Angana Chatterji, a well-known human rights activist, whose report deals with a significant number of mass graves that she has found, through her organisation. Unfortunately, no notice is taken by anybody. No notice is taken by any Government—our Government in particular. If this was to happen anywhere else, there would be a huge outcry, with people clamouring for international war crimes tribunals to be held and for these things to be dealt with.
I appreciate that we have an urgent debate to come after this and that a significant number of colleagues wish to speak, so I wish to conclude by saying that this is about the abuse of human rights and civil liberties, and the contravention of the Geneva convention. I would like the Minister to take note of those three important things when he sums up, and to say what he is going to do about it and how he will have an interaction with the Indian Government to hold them to account. If India wants to be a serious trade partner with the UK, these are the responsibilities it must carry. These issues are very important to my constituents and to all of us in this place, so it must ensure that that is considered and taken forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
In order to give everybody equal time and a fair crack of the whip, will Members please just take up to eight minutes?
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
First, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this debate and on being such a strong advocate for Kashmir and Kashmiris in the Chamber.
In 1947, India and Pakistan partitioned, bringing about the largest migration of people in history, with more than 14 million people—refugees—crossing the newly formed India-Pakistan border for safety. One border disputed to this day is Kashmir, a small piece of land in the Himalayas which today is an unstable home to 12 million Kashmiris. On 24 January 1949, the first group of United Nations military observers arrived in Jammu and Kashmir to oversee a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Almost 70 years later, India and Pakistan have evolved but Kashmir is still a region beset by political disagreement, violence, and human rights violations. Its population is just 12 million, yet more than 3,000 people have disappeared during the past 70 years and the conflict has left more than 47,000 people dead, including 7,000 police personnel. The death toll continues, with both India and Pakistan at an impasse, as was depressingly noted in a House of Commons Library research paper on Kashmir. It stated:
“Currently, the two governments”—
those of India and Pakistan—
“are engaged in a process of rapprochement. This is not the first such process, but it has given rise to optimism.”
That paper was written in 2004, and India and Pakistan have still got nowhere. Optimism has run dry, and bloodshed and bullets in Kashmir have taken over.
UN observations have taken place at various times since 1949, at considerable cost, but to what effect? Resolutions have been passed calling for ceasefires, for security forces to be withdrawn, and for a plebiscite giving Kashmiris the opportunity to decide whether to join India or Pakistan, or even to determine their own future—that is the cornerstone of any civilised democracy.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The UN clearly has a pivotal role to play in Kashmir, but does my hon. Friend believe it has sufficient skills, resources and political will to do what we are expecting of it in securing peace?
Nusrat Ghani
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would say that the UN has considerable skill and considerable resources, but it is falling down on political will. Seventy years have been lost and Kashmir pays the price with lost lives and livelihoods. Last year, it saw an unprecedented level of violence and curfew, with 68 civilians killed and more than 9,000 people injured during months of unbroken violence. This was the bloodiest episode in Kashmir’s recent history. The shame of the international community in failing to recognise the violence and offer support to Kashmiri civilians is a bloody stain on all our history books.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasised the importance of an
“independent, impartial and international mission”
within the conflict-ridden region, with “free and complete access”. Top UN officials have said that they continue to receive reports of Indian forces using excessive force against the civilian population under India’s administration, yet India has refused the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees access to investigate allegations of human rights abuses. I fully accept that Pakistan, not just India, has to allow the UN access to Kashmir so that it can evaluate the damage that the conflict has caused before it becomes another footnote in Kashmir’s history.
The UN has had 70 years to help Kashmiris, but instead has for too long wilfully sidelined the dispute. We need a renewed effort for honest UN involvement to resolve the current crisis, with the UN using all its powers to investigate the crimes committed. What pressure can the UK, by taking advantage of our privileged position on the Security Council, put on the UN? The UN has to show some humility and give some backbone to its statements. No resolution or reconciliation can resume until there is acceptance, not dispute, over the lives lost and damaged. Unlike at any other time in history, we have a real role to play, offering our hand of friendship and partnership. Pakistan is one of the biggest recipients of our aid funding and a partner in tackling terrorism.
Only last year, the Prime Minister visited India to secure a substantial trade deal. During that trip, what discussions took place on Kashmir? Will the Minister update the House on his discussions on Kashmir with his counterparts in both Pakistan and India?
Prime Minister Modi of India said that
“any meaningful bilateral dialogue necessarily requires an environment that is free from terrorism and violence”,
and he is absolutely right. The recent escalation of violence creates terror where no authority is trusted, not even those that are meant to offer protection.
In Kashmir, pellet guns are being used by security forces. The Indian Government have advised that pellet guns should be used rarely, and only in pressing circumstances, yet the Central Reserve Police Force continues to use them persistently. These guns cause life-threatening injuries and brutally blind people—so far, more than 9,000 people have been injured. By their very nature, these pellet guns are the antithesis of targeted precision. They spray and maim through a 6-foot circle. It is impossible to limit the number of casualties with a 6-foot fan of pellets. These are not precision weapons or defensive weapons, and their use in open public places must constitute a human rights violation.
With a pellet gun, anyone and everyone within that 6-foot circle is a target, even children sitting at home. Twelve-year-old Umar Nazir was in the courtyard of his home—he was not protesting—when his eyes were hit by pellets. Both his eyes are injured, with little vision left. He is recovering in Srinagar, where the ophthalmology department has stated that it lacks the medical supplies to proceed with surgeries for injured retinas because the demand is so high. Depressingly, a former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir was forced to tweet Prime Minister Modi to ask for eye surgeons and eye trauma experts to be sent to Kashmir to help those with injuries. People’s lives are being lost and people’s vision is being removed for life, and the best way to get help from Government agencies seems to be by sending a tweet. That is how desperate the situation has become.
Will the Minister ask his Indian counterparts what their justification is for using pellet guns in public spaces? I can see none. Does he agree that the indiscriminate nature of such weapons constitutes a crime when they are used in public spaces? The Central Reserve Police Force has refused to share its operating procedure for this lethal weapon. Will the Minister put pressure on India to disclose its justification? Perhaps the Indian authorities can share with us which other liberal democracy uses such a weapon on its own people. Will the Minister tell the House what aid or medical support is being provided to Kashmiri hospitals?
The human rights violations I have described should be argument enough for UN access for observation. Human rights violations will not disappear without observation; they will just be disputed. If the UN takes the Vienna declaration seriously, it must step up its activity and willingness to be involved.
This is not just a regional issue. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, so the stakes in the dispute are high. Pakistan is reputed to have the 11th strongest military in the world; frighteningly, it is also ranked as the 14th most fragile country. This regional dispute is not so regional: when two nuclear powers fail to resolve such a volatile dispute, it affects us all and has the potential to threaten us all. That is especially true as the terror has taken a new, violent form.
Access to books and education is key to building a strong community. For the first time, schools and educators have become targets. Village schools are being targeted for destruction, with at least 24 being burned to the ground last year. In one incident, the principal of a school in Bugam, Mohammed Muzaffar, rushed to the school as it was burning to the ground. He cried out that it was like his home being burned. It was no ordinary school: built in 1948, it housed 3,000 books.
With schools on fire, teachers fearing for their lives and books burned to ashes, the future is bleak for both young and old in Kashmir, as is its economic security. It is in all our interests that the crisis in Kashmir is recognised, that the full force of our international community is marshalled to support the UN in gaining access to Kashmir, and that all our diplomatic relations are focused on providing a resolution and respite for Kashmir.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I send through you my good wishes to Mr Speaker on his birthday? There is a long queue of people wanting to wish him a happy birthday, and it is important to do so.
Two and a half years ago this House last debated Kashmir, and this is only the second debate in nearly 20 years. I declare that I am the chair of the Indo-British all-party group, and a person of Indian origin who was born in India, studied there, and then came here. I do not know how many Members have visited Kashmir; I think that, between my schooldays and now, I have visited Kashmir 14 times in my life, so I am quite familiar with the economic, social and political conditions there. I am not going to say anything that is hearsay; there will be no vested interests or ill-informed information here. I say that because I have seen practically what is happening and has happened, and the political situation over there.
Having listened to previous speakers, I feel sad that we are bringing together issues that are not linked at all and that are not happening in the way they are being presented. Let us look at the political situation. I strongly condemn any violation of human rights. For the past 45 years I have canvassed and campaigned on human rights issues. When India has violated human rights, I have criticised it—I have criticised India for many other traditions that the Indian Government or people have failed to tackle. That is why I feel strongly about the way we are debating the Kashmir issue today: the questions that are raised are untrue and not relevant to the situation.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
My hon. Friend mentioned that he has visited Kashmir 14 times, but does he accept that the Indian authorities make it exceptionally difficult for British Members of Parliament to visit that part of the world?
Mr Sharma
I am sure that happens. The reason is that when someone wants to visit a place, they must be free of any prejudices before they go. If they have declared beforehand what they think is happening and publicly denounced it, no Government would allow them to visit. Give me one example of a Government who have allowed people to visit who have previously criticised their country.
Imran Hussain
I thank my hon. Friend, who is well respected in this House, for giving us his expertise. Does he at least accept that by speaking up against human rights violations in any country, one is not necessarily against that country?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can I help Members who are going to speak shortly? There is a danger that their interventions will take time away from somebody else. I do not mind having the debate, but Members must recognise that I want to treat everyone equally.
Robert Flello
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am chair of the justice for Colombia group in Parliament. I criticise the Colombian Government time and again, and they let me into their country where I criticise them again.
Mr Sharma
Let us look at what has been happening since 1947. In 1948, after a line of control and a ceasefire were declared, India and Pakistan advocated that they should be part and parcel of the negotiations. In 1965 and 1971, India was attacked in an attempt to change that line of control. Again, in 1999, Pakistan tried to seize an opportunity to redraw the internationally accepted line of control. In total, that happened three times: in 1965, 1971 and 1999.
Having been unsuccessful in full-scale military manoeuvres to take control of more of Kashmir, subversive elements within the Pakistani Government have, since the millennium, turned towards terrorism to further their ends. In 2004, Pakistan made a public commitment to prevent terrorist groups from using its territory to plan, prepare or launch attacks against India. Since then the Pakistani spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence—ISI—has been heavily implicated in India’s most notorious terrorist incidents, most notably the 2008 Mumbai attacks which left nearly 200 dead.
That behaviour—[Interruption.] I will come on to Kashmir, but I am giving some background. That behaviour is regularly seen across Kashmir. Although the line of control is demarked, fighters from Pakistan launch attacks across the state. Those terrorist atrocities are perpetrated only to destabilise the region. They do not help the people of Kashmir or make anyone stronger. All they do is further the misery of millions.
Since the 1948 riots, there has been an attempt to cleanse the region of native people opposed to Pakistani intervention. In the 1990s, we saw the most sustained civil activity aimed at driving Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley. In 1947, a quarter of a million Pandits lived in Kashmir, now only around 20,000 remain. The majority live in squalid camps in Jammu, desperate to return to their homelands. They are unwilling to settle elsewhere and prejudice their right to return.
The threat of communal violence looms large—an ever present threat for millions. That is why we see images of soldiers across Kashmir: they are there to protect citizens of all stripes. People who want to go to work, school, or university are allowed to do so only under the protection of the Indian army. Without the protection of Indian troops, we can see all too easily what happens. The horrifying stories of brutality from the Peshawar school attacks that left more than 132 schoolchildren dead or the assassination attempt on Malala would not be so uncommon. Very few Members of this House would have done anything but affirm the actions of the British Army in trying to maintain the status quo in Northern Ireland. The army is there to protect the border, just as it did in Ulster, and, just as it did in Belfast when it made sure that young boys and girls from Catholic and Protestant families could continue to live the lives that they wanted.
The National Human Rights Commission of India has freely criticised and called for punishments when the rule of law has not been upheld to a rigorous standard. That is not a level of freedom allowed to those residents in Pakistan, which is recognised as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.
The European Parliament observers had this to say after the state elections in 2014—
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he has now been speaking for nearly 11 minutes? I did suggest eight minutes; we are now well over. I know that this is a very important matter, but I want to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard.
Mr Sharma
By working every day for a safer, more prosperous Kashmir, the Indian Government are fulfilling their commitment. The people desire a life unblemished by random acts of terror, where they are free to pursue their own dreams of education, employment and a peaceful life. Why must we again listen to hyped media accusations rather than look at the evidence of patterns of peaceful elections?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I rise to support the motion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this debate and on the spirit with which he moved the motion. I am very proud that we are having this debate—the second one since I was elected—and that I am rising in support of the position that I took in the previous debate on 15 September 2011.
I should also say that I am very proud of the Kashmiris in the United Kingdom, and in Wycombe in particular, for the dignity and determination with which they pursue this issue, despite the difficulty of doing so and in the context of the seriousness of the issues involved. I wish to make three points to the Minister: the first is about the intractability of the issue; the second about some lessons from our own referendum; and the third about how we might make progress.
It is the long-standing position of the Government that this is a matter for the two independent nations of India and Pakistan to resolve. I have reliably found that in the Foreign Office gallows humour is applied to this issue, which is known as the graveyard of Foreign Secretaries. That is a matter of very considerable regret. This issue of self-determination, which we have seen in the United Kingdom, is not one to be thought of as impossible to meet. We have just met it, and this is a moment when the Foreign Office should know that self-determination is not an issue on which no progress can be made in the 21st century. It is not good enough to adopt such a view. I am acutely aware, as is everyone here, that this is a long-standing policy, which Governments of all colours have held, so I mean no criticism of this Government or this Minister. However, it is not good enough to continue this policy for two reasons: first, it is incumbent on all of us in this House to represent the many thousands of people in our constituencies whose family origins will be in India, Kashmir or Pakistan, and they deserve to have their voices heard in this place and internationally.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. What Kashmiris say to me, particularly those in Nottingham but also from across the country, is that there needs to be a much greater urgency from everyone to tackle this problem. It has been going on for decades. The worry is that, in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, people will still be discussing the same issue.
Mr Baker
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why I begin with the point about intractability. The other reason it is not good enough to adopt the current position is that this is a legacy of the British empire and we should acknowledge our historical responsibility. There is a conversation to be had about world views and the willingness of individuals to accept ancestral responsibility, but that is perhaps for another day. Just because it is difficult to make a stand on this issue does not mean that it is not the right thing to do. It is right for the British Government to make a stand on this question.
Secondly, I have some questions about lessons that we might learn from our own referendum. Those of us who are asking for a referendum for the fulfilment of United Nations mandates have to ask ourselves, what if we win, what if we make progress and what if a referendum were held? I want to make two points in particular. The first question is about the collective basis on which a referendum could be held. What would be the demos? Who would vote and on what basis would the result be enforced? We know that in the UK there are those who do not wish to accept the national referendum result; we know, for example, that the Scottish National party picks up on the point about how Scotland voted. These will all be live issues in the event that a referendum is held in Kashmir.
I appeal to all Kashmiris who work on these issues to give serious thought to what the demos would be and on what basis the result would be considered legitimate by all parties, because the other issue—which is of foremost seriousness—is that we saw passions run extremely high in the United Kingdom, where politics generally proceeds no further than harsh language. Given that we are dealing with a region of the world where live conflict among major nuclear-armed powers is a risk, we must ask ourselves how a referendum in Kashmir would proceed peacefully not just during the campaign but afterwards.
Finally on this point let me say something about unity and division. I know that in Wycombe there are British Kashmiris who voted remain, and perhaps many who did not vote at all, who supported the fundamental principle that we should have had a referendum. I am pleased and proud to stand with them, united that as we go forward we should have a referendum for Kashmir.
The third point is perhaps the most contentious: how should we make progress? The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) described as untrue some of the things that the House has already heard in the course of the debate, and this is a very important point. At different times, we have heard Pakistan accused of state-sponsored terrorism, and India accused of using inappropriate weapons, of gang rape and of murder. I do not wish to see either nation slandered and, of course, the crucial difference between a valid charge and a slander is truth. When it comes to making progress, I appeal to everyone to focus relentlessly on objective fact, and to the Government to facilitate that.
I know what I have seen with my own eyes in the videos that have been shown to me. I have seen what is purported to be Indian soldiers beating a confession from a man and what is purported to be Indian soldiers killing a man in the rubble of his own home in Kashmir. They are images that I would prefer never to have seen and that I would never wish to see again, but the crucial question is whether they are a set-up, or propaganda, or whether they are true.
Mr Baker
Will the hon. Lady bear with me a moment?
If the videos are true, Kashmir is a matter for the whole world. The most commented on videos on my YouTube channel are from the beginning and end of the 2011 debate on this subject. The overwhelming consensus is that we should stay out of Indian affairs, but if these allegations are true the whole world cannot stay out of Kashmir and of India and Pakistan’s affairs.
Mr Baker
I will not give way, because I am being encouraged to wrap up.
I understand that the Foreign Office thinks that this issue is intractable, but we have seen in our own country that it need not be. Yes, there are lessons to be learned and the Government can facilitate them, but for goodness’ sake let us recognise that if even a fraction of the allegations being made are true this is an urgent and pressing issue for the whole world.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The House will know of my long-standing interest in Kashmir. Many thousands of British citizens of Kashmiri extraction have made their home in my constituency, and I take an interest on their behalf, but I have a more personal interest as my family originates from Kashmir. All four of my grandparents were born in Kashmir before my family moved to this country, so this debate has very personal resonance for me.
The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has already set out the background to this long-standing dispute and I pay tribute to him and to others who led the charge to secure today’s Backbench business debate.
We have heard already that this is a long-standing dispute between two nuclear-armed powers in one of the world’s most heavily militarised regions. It does not receive enough attention anywhere outside the region, and certainly not in our own country given the size of our British Kashmiri population; it certainly has a lot of attention from that population, but not enough from those outside it. I therefore pay tribute to all the doughty campaigners from all parties who have taken every opportunity available to raise this serious matter in the House of Commons and to press both our current Government and previous Governments to do more to help to build a resolution to this long-standing crisis.
The further push for debate on Kashmir has come as a particular result of the upsurge in violence and fighting in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir since last summer. We see the unacceptable failure of the whole world, the refusal to give effect to UN resolutions and the denial of respect for the self-determination of the Kashmiri people playing out in the worst possible way. People have lost hope and are rising against that loss of hope to try to force to have their rights be respected.
That significant upsurge in violence has elicited a brutal response from the Indian authorities. I am afraid that I wholeheartedly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I do not believe that it is possible to minimise the extent to which the Indian authorities have acted in a disproportionate manner that has significantly harmed and, indeed, created great tragedy for the Kashmiri people in the region. This is the biggest uprising in two decades and the brutality of the response of the police and security services cannot be ignored. The fact that that is the case is upheld by human rights organisations across the world, including Human Rights Watch, whose world report for 2017 found clear evidence that the police and security forces have acted with impunity, that there have been extra-judicial killings and that mass rape has occurred. All those things are not acceptable.
I concur with the comments made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). Of course, there will be questions about the veracity of the videos we will see on YouTube, on Facebook and elsewhere on social media, but there should be an open investigation to prove the veracity of the videos. If they are true—I believe that they will be found to be true—there are big questions for the Indian Government to answer.
I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall that the big difference between the Indian Government and other Governments that commit human rights abuses is that India is the largest democracy in the world. Being a democracy is not simply about giving people a vote to decide their Government. It includes much more. It is about fundamental respect for the rule of law and for basic human rights that must be protected and that sit alongside the ability of the people to elect their Government.
Shabana Mahmood
I am afraid that I would be doing other Members out of their time if I gave way. I apologise.
The use of pellet guns has been mentioned. This is a significant issue for the Indian Government, and our Government must press them more on it. The Indian defence for the use of pellet guns to see off protestors who they say are throwing stones is that pellet guns are non-lethal. Of course, a pellet gun will probably not kill, but I defy anyone to see the pictures of the victims of pellet gun attacks and say that that is a proportionate response against civilians in a democracy. It is not, and I do not believe that anybody would stand up in this House and say that it is.
When we debate Kashmir, people who speak more in favour of the Indian Government’s stance will often say that the position of those who live in Jammu and Kashmir is better because they are able to vote, they are free to take part in the democratic process and they are basically free, and that self-determination is not necessary because they are a free people, freely electing their own local leaders with a significant devolution of power. Nobody—not one person—in Jammu and Kashmir has voted to be hurt, injured, beaten up, raped, blinded or killed. Pellet wounds are brutal. They are a brutal response by the Indian authorities and send a brutal message to the Kashmiri people. They leave brutal scars, which are not just carried by the individuals who bear the physical scars but are borne by the whole community in Jammu and Kashmir itself and all around the world by those of us of Kashmiri extraction. They are a symbol of the population’s repression, its desire to resist that repression and its cry to be heard.
That cry is falling on deaf ears in the largest democracy in the world, which wants to do more business with the rest of the world and play a greater role in world affairs. That position is simply not acceptable and our Government must not shy away from making that plain, especially in relation to the use of pellet guns. Tremendous, appalling, sustained and deliberate misery has been visited on the people of Kashmir for too long. The stories of disappearances and the discovery of mass graves have brought no official UN-led investigation whatever. The police and the security forces have impunity, especially given the implementation of the Special Powers Act of 1990. If a people are humiliated, abused and allowed to lose hope, and offered only despair in turn, and given no answers and no rights, there will an uprising. It is inevitable.
None of us as responsible legislators, also working in a democracy, can watch these events unfold and sit on our hands. We can do more. The legacy of empire demands that we do more. We have a duty to speak out more regularly. We have a duty to challenge as well as to encourage both the Indian and the Pakistani authorities. I have to say to the Minister that the written answers to the questions tabled, particularly last summer, are so bland it is as though these matters are a daily occurrence that can be ignored. That is not good enough. There are other disputes in this world that elicit much stronger responses from the Government when Members of this House table written questions. That has not been the case in relation to the dispute in Kashmir. In particular, there has been no definitive answer on whether the Prime Minister specifically raised the issue of human rights abuses with the Indian Government. It is not enough to tell us that the issue of Kashmir was raised. We need to know whether the human rights abuses and the use of pellet guns were raised.
I believe that it is now incumbent upon the British Government to make a clear call to raise this issue at the United Nations and to ask for an independent, UN-led investigation into human rights abuses, so that we can at least demonstrate that although some parts of this world see this as a forgotten conflict, or a conflict they want to be forgotten, we will never forget it and will keep fighting.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for the calm and measured manner in which he introduced the debate. I hope that we can continue that throughout the debate.
No one in the debate has yet mentioned that 19 January 1990 was an evil day in the history of Jammu and Kashmir—the day when 65,000 Hindus were forcibly expelled from the Kashmir valley by Islamic jihadists, under the slogan, “Die, convert or leave”. They forced only the men out. They said, “Leave your women. We will convert them, we will rape them and we will make them all Muslim.” One of the sad facts of this largely forgotten area of conflict is that it has a religious element as well as the aspect of where people wish to live.
I had the opportunity in February last year to visit Jammu and Kashmir. I went to Srinagar and to Jammu. I was heartened by the fact that when I met people from all walks of life in Srinagar, particularly those from the chamber of commerce, they came with a series of opportunities, including trade, hydro-electric power, agriculture, canning goods to be sold across the world, as well as using the beauty of the Kashmir valley to attract tourists to the area. It is an area that we would all love to go and visit and that we would all love people from across the world to be able to go and visit. The one fundamental issue that they all raised was that of safety and security.
The reality is that when we talk about the suffering in Jammu and Kashmir, we have to concentrate on the human rights abuses and violations against Hindus, Sikhs and minority Muslims. The sad fact is that this has been used as a means of ethnically cleansing this part of the world.
I hope when the Minister replies he will comment on the fact that the European and Indian authorities identified terrorism as one of the major sources of concern to both the European Union and India. Jointly, in their communiqué, they condemned the terror attacks in Brussels, Paris, Pathankot and Gurdaspur and recalled the November 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. They called for the perpetrators of these attacks to be brought to justice. Leaders called for decisive and united actions to be taken against ISIL, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, the Haqqani Network and other internationally active terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Those terrorist groups all operate from Pakistan. They are along the international line of control. They are infiltrating terrorists into the sovereign state of Jammu and Kashmir.
We should remember that the fundamental element of this is when Britain ceased to be the colonial power. The decision on whether states opted either for Pakistani control or for Indian control was left to each independent state. The Maharaja Hari Singh, who was the last ruling Maharaja of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, signed the instrument of accession to India, bringing the state under India on 26 October 1947. We should be clear that under international law, the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. It is the crowning glory of India. As such, every other aspect that has gone on after that date has been a violation of international law.
Several hon. Members have alluded to the United Nations resolution, and we must remember the detail: Prime Minister Nehru took the issue to the United Nations in the first place, seeking to get the Pakistani forces that illegally occupied part of the sovereign state of Jammu and Kashmir to leave. The UN resolution calls—this is the first element—on the illegal occupying forces of Pakistan to leave Jammu and Kashmir, then for the Indian forces to reduce to what is required for security purposes and then, and only then, for a decision to be made on a plebiscite for the people of Jammu and Kashmir on what should be their destiny. Pakistan has never accepted or complied with that UN resolution. That is one of the fundamental reasons why we have this challenge and problem today.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend is making an articulate case, as always. Does he think there is any chance of India engaging in confidence-building measures with Pakistan on this point so that that element of the resolution might ever be fulfilled? Is India willing to give appropriate assurances?
Bob Blackman
Clearly, I cannot speak for the Indian Government and the UK has ceased to be a colonial power. We are not the power that will tell India or Pakistan what to do and, in that respect, I am concerned that the motion could be misinterpreted in other parts of the world—[Interruption.] I think that Mr Deputy Speaker will hold me to account if I give way.
There have been numerous violations of the ceasefire along the line of control, and a recent upsurge in violence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North mentioned. Studies have found that the shells, GPS units and everything else that emanated from the site where those Indian troops were killed and murdered came from Pakistan military use, so it is quite clear that Pakistan was behind that conflict. The number of violations across the line of control has been frequent and well documented, and that needs to be understood. The recent upsurge in violence resulted from the Indian forces eliminating Burhan Wani, the Jihadi John poster boy of jihad.
The use of pellet guns and other human rights abuses have been taken up by the state Government of Jammu and Kashmir, who have had four debates on the subject. Those human rights abuses have been called to account and will be fully investigated, and any proven perpetrators will be suitably punished. I think we can say that the sovereign state is looking after those aspects. We want a peaceful resolution to the situation so that the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, can live in peace and harmony.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this extremely important debate that, as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group, I assisted in bringing to the House. I am privileged to take part because the issue matters deeply to many of my constituents and to me personally, as my family originates from the state of Kashmir so I know the region well. Although the seriousness of the issue means that I could talk at great length, time does not permit so I will try to keep my contributions to several key areas.
I believe that the most pressing matter is the long-standing and ongoing human rights abuses taking place in the region. Last summer and long after, we saw the devastating deployment of pellet guns that resulted in the indiscriminate maiming and blinding of hundreds of Kashmiris, and the horrific photos of the aftermath of their use, with pellets embedded in the bloodied faces of demonstrators and children—images we would all like to forget. But security forces did not stop there. Thousands were injured, phone lines were cut, internet access was constrained and the region was placed under a strict curfew. We would expect such moves under a repressive regime, not one with the hallmarks of a free, open and liberal society.
The abuse then turned deadly, with the illegal use of live ammunition by security forces on unarmed demonstrators resulting in their deaths. Unfortunately, however, this is nothing new. The reality is that human rights abuses have gone on, largely unchecked, for decades in the region, as is well documented by many well-respected human rights organisations. Unaccountability for these crimes is rife. If we are to address the abuses, we must first look at the draconian Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, which allows the security forces to escape justice and accountability. It was only ever intended to be invoked on a temporary basis, but has continued in force since 1990. It has been widely criticised by well-respected human rights organisations, with numerous calls for it to be repealed. I repeat those calls today because the Act grants security forces in the region heavy-handed powers to kill, arrest and search. It is because of the Act that there have been near unspeakable horrors and abuses of human rights including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, tormented and tortured civilians, mass rapes, widowed wives and orphaned children.
According to recent figures published in the Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, between 1989 and 2010 there were almost 7,000 custodial killings. Some 118,000 civilians were arrested, almost 10,000 women were raped or molested, and as many as 10,000 Kashmiri youths were forcibly disappeared. There is no doubt that such abuses are taking place—I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma)—as they are well documented. To deny that they are well documented is to go against many well-respected human rights organisations and the evidence, including video footage and photographs, that we have seen with our own eyes.
Imran Hussain
I may come back to the hon. Lady, but she knows that time is very limited.
As has been mentioned, we must not turn a blind eye to abuses that take place. We must not ignore them or just stand by. We must send a clear message today that wherever it takes place, injustice is injustice, and it will never be tolerated.
The second important issue is that of self-determination, specifically the right of the sons and daughters of Kashmir to self-determination and the urgent need for them to be able to exercise that right. A lot has been said about UN resolution 47, calling for a plebiscite on the future of the region. The resolution is crucial to the story of Kashmir, past and present, but it is non-binding, which is why the plebiscite has not yet taken place. However, I call again for the implementation of that resolution, whether it is called UN resolution 47, a free and fair plebiscite or whatever we name it. The ultimate choice must be for the sons and daughters of Kashmir to determine their own destiny. They have waited for more than 70 years for their voice to be heard and to make a decision on their future to determine their lives. For more than 70 years, they have been denied their birth right to self-determination. The international community must do what is fair and proper, allowing the sons and daughters of Kashmir their birth right.
I am passionate about the subject and could go on, but time is not permitting, so I will conclude. I have previously asked the Minister in this House to condemn the human rights abuses in the region. I ask him again today to use this opportunity on behalf of the Government to condemn those abuses. At the very least, Minister, please accept that the abuses are taking place, and assure us that the Government are doing everything they can to allow for a peaceful resolution on the basis of the sons and daughters of Kashmir determining their own destiny—something that is very much overdue.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this timely and important debate.
It is said that in war there are no winners, only losers. If so, the people of the Kashmir region have surely paid too great a price. The UN resolution was passed in 1948—almost 70 years ago—and we seem no closer to self-determination in the Kashmir region than we did then.
As we know, and as many have said and will say in this debate, the last six months have seen nothing but backwards steps. We have curfews; censorship; the wounding, maiming and killing of civilians; the death of military personnel on both sides; the economy crumbling; food shortages; a refugee crisis caused by tens of thousands of displaced civilians; and skirmishes along the line of control. We have seen international pacts under threat, water shortages, deep divisions on both sides of the line of control, and progress well and truly in reverse.
As we all know, it has been the position of this Government and of successive Governments that the issue of Kashmir is for India and Pakistan to resolve at a pace they see fit, and in a way they see fit, and that it is not for our Government to intervene, suggest solutions or mediate. But what, then, do this House and this country stand for? We have loss of life, widely reported human rights abuses and a United Nations that cannot gain genuine access to the Kashmir valley. To our shame, although we raise this issue with both sides, every time any member of the Government has been challenged to raise it directly at the United Nations, that request has, as far as we can tell, been politely declined, politely deflected and politely ignored.
Those who live in the region and those of us who follow events in Kashmir closely know that a deep underlying tension has scarred one of the most beautiful places in the world. We have all seen the pictures and reports of the oppressive and aggressive tactics that have been used to silence dissent and squash civil unrest. But the people are restless, and rightly so—it has been nearly 70 years since partition, and they are no closer to being in control of their own destiny.
The reports that have come out of the region have been tragic and disturbing. Estimates put civilian deaths at somewhere between 85 and 120. The number of civilian casualties is estimated to be over 13,000, due to the action by security services. We have seen communication —internet and telephone services—restricted. We have seen an attack on the free press, and particularly the Kashmir Reader, which was banned from publishing for months.
Many have talked today about the use of pellets. How a standard operating procedure of firing below the knee can be used for a shell of pellets that have a 6 metre dispersal range is a question for the ages. That is, by any definition of the term, an indiscriminate use of force when used in a crowd, and reports have shown that that is the case in practice, with many civilians losing their eyesight due to this modern form of crowd control.
One widely reported story that struck me was that of a 14-year-old girl who died of respiratory illness. She died as a result of inhaling PAVA chili gas. For six days, she lived with burns to her throat and lungs, and she eventually passed away in a hospital on a ventilator.
The motion raises a number of issues that need further consideration by the House. One is that the Government need to do more at the United Nations to encourage the de-escalation of tension, to encourage both sides to give the UN access to the Kashmir valley and to assess the reports of human rights violations.
Stella Creasy
Does my friend agree that one of the more constructive things the Government could do is press for an independent UN inquiry into human rights abuses? That has helped in other situations around the world.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree that we need to push for an independent inquiry.
We are not asking the Government to prescribe how Pakistan and India resolve the entrenched issue of peace in Kashmir, but everyone here will recognise that, with the situation as it is on the ground—with civilians being killed, oppressed and impoverished—there can be no progress towards peace or a resolution. We have an obligation to do everything in our power to help the region return to a level of normality—I use that term loosely—before any progress can be made towards peace.
The motion also recognises that, for there to be any meaningful and lasting peace in the region, the people of Kashmir have to have the freedom and security to make a decision for themselves. We have long talked about the self-determination of the Kashmir people, but under the current occupation, and without robust and lasting local representation, can we truly expect to reach a position where the will and wishes of the people in this region are not only heard but truly listened to?
When uprisings like this are met with excessive force, that only further entrenches differences. These things have played out many times since the 1990s; at the end, the bodies of civilians are counted, and the people who survive and who struggle to live in this region become further embittered towards those they hold responsible for their oppression.
It is in the interests of Pakistan and India to improve relations, for the security and prosperity of the over 1.4 billion people who live in those countries and the region as a whole. The situation requires strong international leadership—not to force India and Pakistan into a solution but to invest in the foundations that can lead to a lasting peace and to the self-determination of the Kashmir people, and I call on the Government to take the lead.
We have a responsibility 70 years in the making. We as a nation have a vested interest in both these countries. We are intrinsically linked to both of them. We have had a major impact on their history, and we must help them to create a future. We have just signed a massive trade deal with India. The China-Pakistan economic corridor will have an impact on the wider world in terms of trade, growth and prosperity. There is an international perspective, and it is to our benefit.
I spent my teenage years in what is known as Azad Kashmir. Azad, means “free”: free to go to the shops, free to play, free to go out into the street, free to visit—free to go wherever I, or my family, want. My family remain in Azad and continue to enjoy the freedoms of Azadi, but the children in occupied Kashmir do not have those freedoms. They might not return if they go out. A son might not return with his eyesight, and that will affect 70% of his abilities as a human being—I know that from my experience of working with disabilities. A young girl might not return, and if she does, has she been raped and violated? These things—these disabilities—are the reality of the occupation in Kashmir. We cannot and must not abdicate our responsibility. It will be quite frankly shameful if the Government continue in their inaction.
I ask Members to support the motion and to call on the Government to use the current climate to help push Pakistan and India into more prosperous diplomatic relations. I finish with the words of Martin Luther King:
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
This House and this Government cannot remain silent on the issue of Kashmir anymore.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a tragedy in some ways that we are still here debating this issue, although I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and hon. Members for securing the debate. Here we are again—I think it is a couple of years since we had a substantive discussion of this matter.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), it is 70 years since the partitioning of the region, where Britain, of course, had an integral responsibility and role. It is for that reason that we cannot wash our hands of this problem, just ignore it or sweep it under the carpet. The UK has a long-standing duty and responsibility to take an interest and to be involved in this issue.
We have heard, of course, about the United Nations resolution and the call for a plebiscite to solve the issue, but nothing really moves forward. The frustration of many of my hon. Friends in the Chamber is palpable. We do not particularly relish having to come here to talk about this issue time and time again, but we find ourselves having to do so.
Decades on, we find ourselves talking about some of the tragedies that are occurring. Yes, there are occasionally brief spells of calm, but those are then broken by rising tensions, by conflict and by the flare-up of issues. Often, that is because funerals breach curfews that are put in place, which in turn escalates the conflict in this heavily militarised part of the world—and on and on the cycle goes. We have heard a lot about the effects of pellet guns, for instance; I am glad that many hon. Members have raised that. The UK Government must make it clear that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to address civil issues that arise on the streets.
Lots of different organisations and parts of the community have a role to play, as well as the UK. The United Nations clearly has a role. This issue should not be parked and hidden away, often because there is very little media coverage and not much information about what is happening in this part of the world. India and Pakistan do not just have a role—they have a responsibility to do more to move away from the heat and the conflict in this situation to find a better path to the future. Perhaps a wider regional approach to finding peaceful solutions should be explored, given that we see this in other conflict zones around the world. Often where there are bilateral disagreements between two countries in a region, trying to find ways of saving face on either side is incredibly difficult, as we have seen in the middle east, so there is an argument for involving other parties and nations in that part of the world to think about ways of breaking the deadlock.
The Kashmiri community themselves clearly want to have a role, and they do have one: they are a very vocal community in many of our neighbourhoods. As I have said to many groups that press for attention to be given to human rights and for self-determination in Kashmir, it would help massively if they could all co-ordinate and work together. That includes communicating with Members of Parliament, because we are not getting information about what is happening in that part of the world. Much more could be done in the new ways in which we operate, even on social media, to make sure that the wider community and policymakers are aware of issues that arise, and effective co-ordination would make a difference in that regard.
We need to start to think laterally about how to crack this problem so that we are not here again in two years’ time. What different mechanisms could be available to try to find peaceful solutions? The UK has a role and should think about promoting peacekeeping, which means encouraging Governments to demilitarise and stop the attacks to take out the tension and the heat; promoting peace-building, which means reversing some of the destructive steps that have been taken in recent years; and promoting peacemaking, which means searching for negotiated resolutions where possible. All these things can and should be taking place simultaneously.
Leaders in India and Pakistan must all dial back on aggression and not be provoked by individual attacks, although that is of course difficult if they feel that different governmental forces are behind, or alleged to be behind, certain attacks. Normalisation of the situation in Kashmir is absolutely essential so that we can open the routes and channels for dialogue. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said, we must go back to the rule of law as a matter of urgency, and have the accountability for the police and the armed forces that has been lacking in many ways.
I know there is a long-standing position in terms of the Foreign Office’s policy on this, but I call on the Minister and the UK Government to think about ways of promoting conflict resolution and confidence-building measures between the different sides—for example, a summit to learn lessons about peacemaking tactics in areas where the UK has been involved in times past. The conflict in Northern Ireland was lengthy, and it took a lot of time to get people around the table, sometimes not even in the same building or the same room, but the UK Government have expertise in this field and they should find ways of applying it. It is also worth thinking about the potential role of economic development and regeneration in reciprocation for dialogue that we might want to have, because that has worked in other situations.
I thank those from the Pakistani and Kashmiri community who have made strong representations to me. On Friday 24 February, I will host a Nottingham roundtable on Kashmir, trying to bring together, as independently as I possibly can, all those with an interest in this issue to try to drill down into what the community is looking for and the solutions that might be viable, and then to make representations to the Government. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that point directly to the Minister this afternoon.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who made a very good and solution-focused speech. I thank the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for securing and leading this debate.
I first visited Kashmir in 2011 just after I was elected to serve Rochdale, a town with a vibrant Kashmiri community. Kashmir was just as beautiful, and the people just as welcoming, as I was told would be the case. Yet I knew that this wonderful part of the world was wrought with fear and tension. While I was there, I heard from people on the ground about the human rights abuses regularly carried out by the Indian army, and ever since I have kept a close eye on the situation. The brutality of the Indian army was seen in full force last summer when unrest broke out in the region. The use of live ammunition and pellet guns against crowds was entirely disproportionate, as a number of speakers have described. I thank my colleagues, in particular, for having already raised those issues with our Government. Tensions are still simmering away, manifesting themselves in small clashes that could escalate in the foreseeable future.
In such circumstances, Britain really does have to step up to the mark. We all know the old Pottery Barn rule: “You break it, then you have to fix it”. Thanks to our long imperial history there are plenty of broken pots all across the world, from Palestine to Hong Kong to Kashmir. It is therefore unacceptable for the British Government to wash their hands of the matter, as they are currently doing. While I accept that Pakistan and India must be at the forefront of striking a deal, there is no reason why Britain cannot play a more active role in mediating the conflict by bringing people round the table and monitoring the human rights situation in Kashmir. I understand that during the Prime Minister’s meeting with Indian Premier Modi last November, the issue of human rights abuses in Kashmir was not even raised. Can the Minister confirm this? If true, what does it say about Britain’s place in the world?
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister outlined her vision for a “global Britain” that is confident across the world. I welcome this ambitious vision for our country, but I have my reservations. This new outlook cannot solely be about forging trade links across the world. The promotion of human rights and liberal democratic values must be at the heart of British foreign policy if we truly wish to be a positive global player. I worry that in the coming years human rights will be pushed even further down the agenda as the Government seek to secure Britain’s economic future. We have a vastly expanded team working on international trade, who I am sure will be keen to strike some sort of free trade deal with India. I wonder what this will mean for the people of Kashmir. It is perfectly reasonable for a Prime Minister to raise sensitive issues like human rights and territorial disputes behind closed doors, as many Prime Ministers have done with their Indian counterparts previously, but I am not confident that this will happen in future. I would like the Government to provide me and Britain’s Kashmiri diaspora with reassurances that settling the issue of Kashmir will remain a substantive part of the UK’s dialogue with India and Pakistan.
This is not just about India and Pakistan finding a solution; Kashmiris must also be part of any future dialogue. Britain should promote their voice in this debate—a voice that is too often shut out. While we talk about human rights today, it is important to remember that the most important right for a people is the right to self-determination. It is therefore incumbent on the British Government to help the people of Kashmir to determine their own future.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for securing the debate. The political situation in Kashmir continues to be a long drawn-out conflict, ranging back to 1947. Since then, there have been occasional surges in violence, leading to the deaths of hundreds of civilians in the area. Although attempts at dialogue to resolve the conflict have been made by both the Pakistani and the Indian Governments, ultimately those attempts have amounted to nothing substantial for the people of Kashmir and their calls for self-determination.
In 2010, Kashmir saw one of its most brutal episodes of violence when 120 civilians, most of them teenagers, were killed at the hands of the Indian military. However, the violence of 2010 was overshadowed by the tragic series of events that we witnessed in the summer of 2016, which appear to constitute a violation of human rights. The killing of a rebel leader in Kashmir who was revered by the Pakistani population and known as a terrorist by the Indian state resulted in hundreds of Kashmiri citizens flooding to the streets in protest against the killing.
Undoubtedly, such events are but triggers in this long-standing conflict, which is perpetuated by a feeling of frustration and anger among the Kashmiri community, who have often found themselves restricted by curfews and limits to their freedom of speech, and who have been, at times, bullied and humiliated at the hands of Indian officials. The protestors threw stones when confronted by the Indian military, and the retaliation by the Indian military was staggering: they used pellet guns in an attempt to disperse the crowds, although the use of live bullets and CS gas was also noticeable. By the end of August, after six weeks of violence, some 6,000 civilians had been injured. Almost 1,000 of them suffered injuries to their eyes.
Let us be clear: pellet guns are seen as non-lethal crowd control weapons, but they have devastating and long-lasting consequences. In a report entitled “Lethal in Disguise”, the International Network of Civil Liberties Organisations and Physicians for Human Rights made it clear that pellet rounds cause
“an indiscriminate spray of ammunition that spreads widely and cannot be aimed”
and that they are
“likely to be lethal at close range, but are likely to be inaccurate and indiscriminate at longer ranges”.
The report goes on to state that most countries
“prohibit the use of metal shot as excessively dangerous but several countries, including Egypt and Bahrain, use it regularly.”
It appears that we should add India to that list of states.
India is the largest democracy in the world, with a thriving economy and an increasingly educated population. I am therefore appalled by its attitude to the use of such methods, which have such damaging and, at times, life-threatening effects. In the long term, such methods only sow feelings of anger and resentment within the Kashmiri community that will no doubt spill over when something else triggers a reaction.
In answer to a question that Lord Ahmed tabled on 14 December in the other House, Baroness Anelay of St Johns assured us on 23 December that the Government of India are reviewing the use of pellet guns in Kashmir. A recent report in The Independent suggests that India will swap this non-lethal method for alternative mechanisms. Although that is welcome, India must make a clear commitment that it will not use pellet guns, and that any alternative crowd control mechanisms will be used proportionately and in line with human rights laws and international legal obligations.
India and Pakistan are both friends of the UK, but we should use that friendship to drive forward a policy of dialogue between them on the issue of Kashmir, and to encourage respect for human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I strongly condemn the violence in Kashmir, and in particular the use of pellet guns, which have devastating effects on civilians. Although we welcome the review of the use of those weapons, it may fall short of a clear commitment. As the UK is a member of the UN Security Council, I urge the Government to raise these human rights abuses at the UN and to call for an investigation into them. As touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in her intervention, a wider review of human rights throughout the world would be very welcome.
It is in everybody’s interest that dialogue between India and Pakistan continues on the issue of Kashmir so that a long-term sustainable solution can be found to the conflict, which has already gone on for too long. I therefore support the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Because of the number of Members who want to catch my eye for this debate and the following debate, I am going to drop the unofficial time limit—there is no official limit on this—to five or six minutes, with 10 minutes each for the wind-ups. Then we will come in just on time. If Members could keep to that time, that would be great.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion and to congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing the debate.
Like many hon. Members present, I represent a richly diverse constituency, the people of which owe their origins to more than 120 countries. Those whose family roots are in Kashmir are one of the largest groups. One of the many advantages of having so many diaspora communities in my constituency is that when we see issues around the world, we feel them back home. For example, when the devastating earthquake hit northern Pakistan and Azad Kashmir in October 2005—killing around 90,000 people, leaving 3.5 million homeless, and destroying vital infrastructure—we felt the pain in Sheffield, through friends and neighbours whose families were in the region, and the city responded. As well as offering immediate support, we set about raising funds to rebuild the infrastructure. As a result of those efforts, seven years later Sheffield College opened on a wooded hill overlooking the city of Bagh—a community at the heart of the quake that lost 10% of its population. I pay tribute to my constituent Abdul Assim and all those who led the fundraising.
Just as that link through the diaspora community gives us a special responsibility for natural disasters beyond our control, so it gives us a special responsibility for events that we have shaped and that we can influence. The UK clearly has a special responsibility, dating back to our occupation of Jammu and Kashmir and the terms of our withdrawal after independence in 1947, so events of the sort that have occurred since last July should focus us all again on seeking a settlement to one of the most long-standing post-war grievances. The basis for that settlement should be, as others have mentioned, UN Security Council resolution 47, which was agreed almost 70 years ago in April 1948, calling for a plebiscite to enable the people of Kashmir to determine their own future.
The wave of protests and their suppression in the Kashmir valley following the killing of Burhan Wani have been a tragedy for the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir, and they should have prompted a concerted effort by the international community to reach a political solution. The Indian authorities have responded to the wave of strikes, rallies, protests and demonstrations with what looks to the whole world like disproportionate repression. In November the BBC estimated that more than 85 protesters had been killed and thousands more had been injured.
As many Members have said, of particular concern has been the use of pellet guns by the Indian authorities. Those are guns that fire shrapnel directly at protestors. As the BBC reported, despite Indian soldiers supposedly being required by their own standard operating procedure to target only the legs, and to do so only in extremely volatile conditions—the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) have described the nature of those weapons, which make that standard operating procedure irrelevant—90% of those who were injured received injuries above the waist. Those were horrifying injuries, and many children were blinded. That simply cannot go on.
I hope the Government will make the strongest possible representations to the Indian authorities and support the Amnesty International call for a ban on the use of pellet guns, but we need to go further and actively seek a political solution. When I tabled questions to the Minister, for whom I have high regard, in September, he confirmed that
“The longstanding position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir”.
Of course that is right, but it is not enough. In other situations around the world, where we see the sort of injustice that exists in Kashmir, and we see it exploding, as it has recently, the international community tries to bring pressure to bear on the protagonists to seek a solution, and to engage all the key stakeholders in realising that solution. That is why I asked what the UK Government were doing within the United Nations and the Commonwealth to seek action. Frankly, the Minister’s reply that he had had no discussions and that:
“The United Kingdom does not intend to support an international conference or a plebiscite on Kashmir in line with UN Security Council Resolution 47”
is unacceptable.
I ask the Minister to think again. The UK played a part in creating the problem; let us now play a part in finding a solution.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for bringing the debate to the House today. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) on her detailed and passionate speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on the determination and clarity in her speech.
Like many other hon. Members, I have been horrified at the ongoing violence in Kashmir and I know that trying to get peace for the region is enormously important to a great number of my constituents. A couple of months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) came to Batley and Spen in her role as shadow Foreign Secretary. Speaking to a packed hall in our Pakistani Kashmiri Welfare Association centre, we heard heart-breaking stories from my constituents, who were stressed and anxious about friends and loved ones in the region. Their anxiety was intensified by frustration at the seeming lack of political will to resolve the crisis. If the Minister had been in the hall that afternoon, he would have been left in no doubt of the urgency of the situation. A number of constituents have also contacted me in the lead-up to this debate, all stressing their desire that peace be agreed in the short-term and that self-determination for the people of Kashmir be negotiated in the long-term.
As we know, the UK’s long-standing position on Kashmir is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a genuine political solution, while respecting the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The Prime Minister has previously stated that it is not for the UK to prescribe a solution, or act as a mediator. That said, we cannot ignore the urgency of the situation. We are considering two nuclear powers with a volatile history of mistrust, violence and brinkmanship.
As the Minister will know, under the partition plan of the Indian Independence Act 1947, Kashmir was free to accede to either India or Pakistan. Time does not permit me to give a full history of the Kashmiri conflict, but we cannot avoid the fact that there is a very clear link back to the conflicts there and the decisions made here. We have a moral duty to encourage Pakistan and India to commence peace negotiations to establish a long-term solution on the future governance of Kashmir, based on the rights of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of the UN Security Council resolutions. So far, we have not done enough.
For example, the Prime Minister had a unique opportunity to raise human rights abuses in Kashmir when she met Prime Minister Modi in November. We have heard in a reply to a parliamentary question that the Prime Minister discussed Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister, but sadly we have no information about what was said or agreed.
However, we know that the Prime Minister engaged in a charm offensive to secure a lucrative trade deal with India. My concern is that the Prime Minister’s anxiety to secure a trade deal may have diluted her comments on Kashmir. With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on what the Prime Minister raised with her counterpart and the responses she received.
Did the Prime Minister raise the arbitrary and excessive force carried out by the Indian security forces? Can the British Kashmiri people be assured that their Prime Minister took meaningful steps to leave Modi in no doubt that the recent conflict is completely unacceptable? Amnesty International has stated that the excessive use of violence violated international standards and worsened the existing human rights crisis in the region.
The flare-up of violence that the world has witnessed since July 2016 has shocked us all: a devastating loss of civilian life and injuries counted in their thousands; closure of universities and schools; general strikes; curfews and the closure of media outlets and mobile phone services. As we have discussed, the authorities’ use of pellet guns has left people blind and with other severe injuries. Lives have also been lost. I wholeheartedly support Amnesty International’s call for a ban on the use of pellet guns against stone-throwing protesters.
The injuries that pellet guns leave are devastating. Insha Mushtaq who, at just 14 had dreams of being a doctor, is now blind, possibly for the rest of her life. When hit by the bullet, Insha was sitting by a window. She wants to know what she did wrong. My constituent, Amjed, told me of the state of anxiety his family live in every single day. Some are lucky enough to have made it out of Kashmir to Pakistan, others are left living in fear. The women and girls in his family do not leave the house for fear of being raped or attacked. The menfolk have to tell family members precisely where they are going in case they never return.
It is no wonder that women and girls do not leave the house. According to Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, rape by Indian police and the armed militia is commonplace throughout Kashmir. The victims are generally poor women and those who are vulnerable and low caste, and tribal minority groups. Vicious acts routinely go unpunished.
The British Kashmiri community in my constituency has been at pains to stress that they want a peaceful solution. The lives of their friends and families in the region rely on it. We must continue to call on all parties to engage in meaningful dialogue to break the cycle of violence and breaches of international human rights on the Indian side of the line of control in Kashmir, and seek a lasting bilateral resolution. The wishes of the Kashmiri people must be at the forefront of those negotiations, because the world is watching.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on a fine speech. She is a great addition to the House and I welcome her to it.
Much has been said that does not need to be repeated, but I commend so many of the serious, weighty and important speeches and I hope that the Government are listening. Like many hon. Members here today, I represent several thousand Kashmiris in my Luton North constituency. Many came to Luton decades ago, but they have not forgotten the painful experiences of their fellow countrymen and women, which continue to this day. Indeed, in recent months, those experiences have got worse, and we must all stand against the violence and human rights abuses that are being inflicted on the people of Kashmir.
The Government must be pressed to do more in international forums to secure an end to those abuses. I have spoken in previous debates on the subject in the Chamber and have been with other hon. Members to the Foreign Office to make representations to Ministers and to press them to use their influence to help eliminate the human rights violations as a first step to resolving the Kashmir dispute once and for all.
I have visited Kashmir. I have been to Mirpur and the town of Kotli, where many of my constituents come from. The region is therefore not just a distant continent to me. As the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out, India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, and Kashmir is prime source of tension between the two countries. It is therefore of the greatest interest and concern to the wider world to find a solution to the Kashmir dispute to make the world a safer place.
I have had many meetings in Luton with Kashmiri constituents. Although all are united in wanting freedom for the people of Kashmir, there is a range of views about what its future should be. Some believe that Kashmir should simply become part of Pakistan, and doubtless others will want it to remain to part of India, while yet others want it to be an independent state. However, the concept that unites all of them is that Kashmiris should decide their future for themselves; that there should be self-determination. I support the Kashmiris in that aspiration. They should determine their future and we should support them.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
According to Reuters, at least 80 civilians were killed by Indian forces between July and December last year, many of whom were participants in protests. The protests began on 8 July after the death of Burhan Wani, the popular leader of the largest Kashmiri independence group. The authorities imposed a curfew, and disabled internet access and mobile phone networks, but this did not prevent an escalation. Both tear gas and live ammunition were used to disperse large crowds and groups of stone-throwers.
There have been expansive contributions in the Chamber about the indiscriminate use of pellet guns to disperse protesters. Pellet guns have the predictable effect of blinding those they hit. At close range, the hundreds of projectiles they fire can carry enough kinetic energy to penetrate skin and organs. They can therefore be fatal if fired at much of the body. A very large number of pellet injuries have been to the face, with 570 people seeking treatment for eye injuries at the main hospital in Srinagar on 8 November. According to hospital’s figures, more eye surgeries were performed in the three days between 10 July and 12 July than throughout the whole of the previous three years. That cannot be right.
Many children are among those who have lost their sight as a result of such tactics. In the case of 13-year-old Mir Arafat, the pellets penetrated deeply enough to become embedded in his blood vessels, neck, oral cavity, lungs and heart. In the case of Junaid Akhnoon, also 13, the pellet injuries to his head and chest were severe enough to kill him. At a minimum, this is evidence that insufficient care is being taken to ensure that civilians are not seriously injured by security forces’ tactics. It is also suggestive of something far more serious: that the security forces in the region are intentionally using tactics that blind civilians to discourage protests against Indian rule. According to a spokesperson for the state Government, the use of pellet guns is “a necessary evil”. But it is not. It will never be necessary for security forces to blind children to ensure the restoration of order.
Both India and Pakistan have been responsible for deaths from army shelling and military raids across the line of control in recent months, in a cycle of retribution that regularly claims civilian lives in addition to those of soldiers. There are accusations that Pakistan has used the popular unrest of ordinary Kashmiris as cover for renewed attempts by proxy groups to enter and further destabilise the border regions under Indian control. I am sure that the Minister, like me, is deeply troubled by these recent reports, but equally disturbing is what goes on behind the scenes.
Amnesty International cites the example of Khurram Parvez, a prominent Kashmiri human rights defender who was arrested repeatedly and held without proper process for a total of 75 days last year. Eventually, his detention was ruled to be arbitrary and illegal by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, and his release was finally secured following international pressure on 30 November. I am pleased the Minister is in his place and I beg him to hear that international pressure does have an effect. The case of Khurram Parvez is part of a pattern that human rights organisations have been detailing for years, most comprehensively in Amnesty International’s 2015 publication, “Denied”. Amnesty’s view is that the dire situation the report describes remains largely unchanged. Due process is still frequently denied both to those accused of militant activity or support, and to those victims—along with their families and communities —of state security abuses. They never see any progress towards justice and peace.
As we continue to work on these issues, we must ensure that humanitarian concerns remain at the forefront of our minds. It is clear that this conflict has gone on far too long. The individual stories we have heard today are really nothing new. Much of the conflict goes on away from the eyes of the western world. I hope this debate will begin to change things. I further hope that the Government will renew their efforts: to create opportunities for productive dialogue between India and Pakistan; to discourage escalation and exert pressure against policies that allow or encourage human rights abuses; and to facilitate, wherever they can, a permanent settlement that gives Kashmiris a genuine voice. To quote Mandela:
“It is so easy to break down and destroy. The heroes are those who make peace and build.”
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome this debate. I hope our Government, who in a post-Brexit world are now very outward-looking and want to develop their foreign policy, use Kashmir as a good example of where they can use their new clout in a way they have failed to do, I am afraid to say, in relation to Israel and Palestine. I had assurances from the Foreign Secretary last week that the Government were involved in all forums when it came to Israel and Palestine, and were actively seeking a solution to that conflict. What hon. Members did not realise was that he meant the Government were not in fact going to be sending any Ministers to the Paris conference. That will no doubt be a subject of a future debate and it would be inappropriate of me to focus on it in this debate.
We have heard many eloquent contributions from Members with significant Kashmiri communities. They have run through the historical analyses of the situation, and set out distressing and harrowing descriptions of the injuries and deaths that have occurred in Kashmir, and the human rights abuses that Kashmiris have suffered. I will not repeat them, but in the few minutes available I would like to put some questions to the Minister. I hope he will be able to, either off his own bat or through the inspiration of those who assist him, provide answers to the questions during the course of the debate.
Does the Minister accept that this is an international conflict that requires the international community, and in particular the United Kingdom, to assist in its resolution? Does he support the idea of an international investigation into the human rights abuses committed by the Indian army or any other alleged perpetrators? Does he accept that as long as the Indian army presence remains at its current scale throughout towns in Kashmir, such allegations will continue to surface regularly? Do the UK Government challenge the Indian Government on the immunity granted to its army? Do the UK Government challenge the use of the pellets many Members have referred to? Do the UK Government regularly raise the issue of human rights in Kashmir? In the House of Lords on 12 December, my noble Friend Lord Hussain asked whether the Prime Minister had specifically raised the issue of human rights abuses in Kashmir in her discussions with Prime Minister Modi, but he did not receive an answer. Finally, what exactly is the role of China? We have not heard much about China, but it is clearly one of the occupying powers, albeit in perhaps the more sparsely populated areas. What is China’s role in this conflict?
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) suggested that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) had made a solution-focused speech. I, too, want to put to the Minister a possible way forward: the opening of the line of control, so that family and cultural ties can be re-established; the formation of a Kashmir forum to negotiate what powers can be ceded by India and Pakistan to an autonomous elected authority; the retention of Indian and Pakistani bases; and, some years after that, a treaty to guarantee everything from water to power provision for India and Pakistan, as well as the strategic regional defence needs of the two countries. That might be a way forward. I hope that the Minister will set out the Government’s precise approach.
As others have stated, Kashmir is just another long-standing dispute in respect of which the UK played a central role in creating the conditions that led to conflict and where it must now play an equally critical role in finding a resolution. We must now hear from him how he sees our role developing, what our role in the peace process will be and how peace in Kashmir will be secured.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the speech from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this debate. I am proud to have been a member of the all-party group on Kashmir for the 12 years I have been in the House and to have been a secretary to it in the past. I also pay tribute to the speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who spoke with particular power.
When I look back on the 12 years I have campaigned on this issue in the House, I am afraid it is the lack of progress on which I have to remark, not on progress that is worth celebrating. Of course, there have been advances around border controls, trade and transport, but the truth is that today we are not one step closer to honouring that basic requirement set out in the UN mandate all those years ago to grant the right—not the privilege—of self-determination to the people of Kashmir. Over the 12 years, among our most urgent calls have been those for the free movement of human rights observers and the media throughout the area of Kashmir, and my goodness the events of the last six months have underlined why we were so right to call for that. The abuses perpetrated—with pellet guns, rape, chili powder—have maimed, scarred and destroyed lives, and not just among this generation; the memories of the abuse will cascade down the generations, and that will not make the solution or the arrival of peace happen any sooner; it will make it tougher and slower.
In particular, we have to ask ourselves why we have learned so much about these abuses not from the mainstream media but from social media. I pay tribute to those who had the courage to post news about the atrocities so that the world and we in this House could not look away. We could see it on our phones and on our screens. The BBC has at least started to produce some coverage, but it is of no comparison to the kind of coverage we used to see from South Africa when I was a teenager or of the kind we see from Israel and Palestine week in, week out. We have to call on our media organisations to give us the benefit of transparency so that the world might be forced to look at what is happening.
The moral arguments for a solution are pretty clear and have been well articulated this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr alluded to some of the geopolitical demands for a solution too. China’s new silk road strategy will see $4 trillion to $6 trillion of investment poured into the business of integrating the Eurasian landmass. Indeed, yesterday in Dagenham we celebrated the arrival of the first train direct from China. This great continent is changing, and relations between China and Pakistan are changing. If we get this right, there is a tremendous economic prize ahead, and the principal beneficiaries could well be India and Pakistan, but not if they continue to pour money, arms and troops into the most heavily defended and dangerous border on earth. That is why both sides now surely have an interest in a solution and why we in this House have a moral obligation to help push that solution forward.
I have been part of a group of people in the House who have argued for change for the last 12 years. It is time now for some honesty and candour about whether that political strategy is going to produce any more change or further advance in the 12 years ahead. I do not think it will. We in the House now have to look to other Parliaments around the world—in Europe, the developing world, the US—and begin to think about how we might construct an international alliance of parliamentarians to call for change. We all know about the limitations of the United Nations. It has not made a lot of progress in the last 50 or 60 years. Do we really believe it will make any more in the years ahead? Let us take direct action now, as parliamentarians, not on our own but in alliance with others who believe in the same things we do, and let us together campaign for some basic changes that we all want: the repeal of the special powers Act, which is in clear breach of the UN obligation to which India has signed up; a ban on pellet guns, which many hon. Members have called for this afternoon; free movement of human rights groups throughout Kashmir; an investigation into the 2,200 mass graves that we know are there; and, yes, finally, self-determination for the people of Kashmir.
We have to make a choice in this House about whether we stand on the side lines of this debate, as impotent bystanders, or whether we are to be protagonists for change, just as we were in South Africa and Burma. One of my constituents put it to me like this:
“People of Jammu Kashmir seek a peaceful resolution of the issue and want their country to become a bridge of peace not a bone of contention between India and Pakistan.”
We in the House should support the motion and that basic instinct.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow that incredibly articulate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). This has been an excellent debate, and I pay tribute to all those who have made contributions, particularly my colleagues from neighbouring constituencies in west Yorkshire, which all have significant Kashmiri communities. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this debate and on the broader contribution from the all-party group on Kashmir, which has sought to keep Kashmir on the political agenda in the UK—with varying degrees of success, despite its best efforts.
In preparation for today’s debate, I watched the recording of the last debate on Kashmir, secured by David Ward, the then Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East, back in 2014. That, too, was a Back-Bench business debate. It is a testament to the Backbench Business Committee that it finds time for debates on issues often overlooked in the day-to-day business of the House, so I thank it for allocating time for this debate.
As I have already mentioned, many of my constituents are of Kashmiri heritage, and so Halifax will always keep a close eye on what is happening in that part of the world. Before Christmas, I met a number of local residents at the local Madni mosque for a constructive discussion about the deterioration of the situation in Kashmir and to consider what practical steps we could take locally. I mentioned that one of the challenges was accessing the latest information directly from the region—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill just made this point too. We know that this is a consequence of the restrictions on the ground, but I also worry that because this conflict has gone unresolved for so long, it is overshadowed and goes largely unreported by the mainstream media. It is a challenge for us all to get it back on to those media platforms. Even the Foreign Office, in a written response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), said we had limited access to the Kashmir valley, which made it challenging to obtain accurate information on the situation there.
The House will appreciate, however, that, as others have said, for some of those families in Halifax and other communities throughout the UK, the problem is not that they cannot access information—information comes directly from their family and friends still in Kashmir; rather, the challenge is their sense of helplessness on hearing just how desperate the situation has become, feeling unable to protect loved ones and unable to bring about the civil protections and stability we need in order to keep people safe and to work towards a long-term sustainable resolution to the conflict.
Among other issues, we discussed at that meeting the role constituents could play in securing a debate, so once again, although we are all frustrated at how long this conflict has gone on unresolved, that we are having this debate in the main Chamber is a sign that a little progress has been made. The Member who led the 2014 debate outlined that the conflict was long standing and complex; as we have heard today, he was not wrong. Kashmir is one of the longest-running territorial disputes in the world, and the region sits between two nuclear powers, so it is astonishing to think that the world does not pay more attention. Not only have we failed to make any progress since that debate in 2014; the situation has deteriorated. As the motion indicates, we have all grown increasingly alarmed by the recent escalation of violence on the Indian side of the line of control. Depressingly, progress seems to have gone backwards.
I could spend a long time describing the incidents and the timeline that have brought us where we are today, but a number of Members have already done so, and I want to focus, once again, on the human rights violations that are taking place in the region. I am fairly confident that the Minister will tell us that it is the UK’s
“long-standing position…that it is for India and Pakistan to find a ?lasting resolution to the situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as mediator.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 652.]
After all, that is what I have been told on a number of occasions in response to both written and oral questions.
I appreciate the complexity of the issue, and I do not believe that anyone here is asking the Government simply to prescribe a solution to the problem of either India or Pakistan. Along with many others, I believe in self-determination for the Kashmiri people, and believe that only by empowering those who actually live in Kashmir to determine their own future through the ballot box will we bring about a long-term solution. However, as a responsible member of the international community, we have a responsibility to seek to put a stop to human rights abuses, and that is the work that I am asking the Government to undertake today.
When tensions escalated dramatically last summer, we saw a sharp rise in the use of pellet-firing shotguns by the Indian forces as a means of controlling crowds. I will not go into that particular horror, and the damage that those pellet guns have caused, because other Members have already done so very articulately.
Back in 2008, Doctors Without Borders—MSF—published a report. Although the research was undertaken a number of years ago, the report makes the most comprehensive attempt that I have found to map the health requirements of Kashmiri people living in close proximity to the line of control, in terms of both their physical and mental wellbeing. I found it a harrowing read, and given that the situation has only deteriorated since 2008,1 felt that it was worth sharing some of its findings. The research involved household surveys, conducted in person, in two districts in the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir. Of the 510 people who were interviewed, a staggering 86% reported frequent confrontations with violence including exposure to crossfire, 67% said that they had witnessed torture, and 34% said that they had had personal experience of forced labour. The report found that violence affects nearly everyone living in Kashmir: 40% of interviewees said that they had witnessed somebody being killed, and a horrifying 13% said they had witnessed rape.
Inevitably, MSF concluded not only that the requirements of the region were high in terms of physical injury as a result of the conflict, but that the prevalence of insecurity and prolonged violence had substantial implications for mental health. A third of those interviewed had contemplated suicide, and over a third had symptoms of psychological distress. Within that, the level of psychological distress among women was significantly higher. The prospects of any economic regeneration of the region are hopeless in those circumstances and in the face of such conflict. Fifty-three per cent. of those interviewed had had no formal schooling, and 24% reported high or total dependence on financial assistance from authorities or charities. I am struggling to find evidence that the position has improved substantially since 2008.
Given that the sustainable development goals are high on the world’s agenda this year, may I ask the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for International Development to explore all the ways in which we can improve the situation in Kashmir? There is no way that we can make progress in terms of education, health and the alleviation of poverty, or support economic recovery, unless the violence stops. Both Pakistan and India are world players and have obligations in relation to the sustainable development goals. How can we ensure that Kashmir does not get left behind? I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for Fairtrade. One of the things that we discussed at our meeting in Halifax was the role that it might be able to play, and the direct link that my local town could establish in supporting little independent businesses in Kashmir that might stimulate economic recovery.
I see that I am being encouraged to wind up my speech, so I will leave it there. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to my contribution, and those of other Members.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak about human rights issues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on setting the scene so well. Members have made some incredible speeches today about an issue that has clearly fired them up.
It is well known in the House that I speak passionately about human rights and the treatment of people in places such as Kashmir and, indeed, places throughout the world. Human rights in India are fundamental rights that should include freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but it is clear that they fall short of that on many occasions. Although every individual has those rights in India, Kashmir often experiences violence, and the Indian army, the Central Reserve Police Force and various separatist militant groups have been accused of and held accountable for severe human rights abuses against Kashmiri civilians. The problem is that they have not been held accountable enough for some of the things that they have done, and that worries us considerably. I firmly believe that we in the House have a role to play, and that we should use any diplomatic influence that we have to bring about change. Indeed, part of our role is to influence and ask for change.
Human rights are often defined as principles to which any human is entitled, and the individuals who were targeted with violence were therefore entitled to express their religion, but because their religion was seen as a threat, that turned upon them. The attackers are rarely charged, and perhaps the Minister will give us an idea of how we can make them accountable. With a strong nationalist leader and Government, it is incredibly hard for justice to be brought. It is also clear that the Government have little interest in speaking out about atrocities. They are almost like Nelson, closing one eye and seeing nothing that is happening.
Certain ethnic minorities in areas of India, like Kashmir, are often exposed to all sorts of human rights abuses. Smaller religious groups such as Christians are often targeted. Christianity is seen as a threat to Hinduism, and despite the existing human rights policy that exists on paper in India, Christian minorities assert that the authorities do not do enough to stop the brutal violence against them. That violence is often perpetrated by Hindu nationalists who harass, intimidate and attack Christians to prevent conversions from Hinduism and Muslimism, which they would see as a major threat in destroying the Hindu faith and promoting Christianity. That concerns me greatly. I have spoken about it before, and I have taken the chance to do so again today.
The human rights policy does refer to freedom of religion, but it also asks Christians in Kashmir if they feel free to share their faith. No, they do not: when they are asked that question they feel threatened and fearful, and they need help. In August 2016, the BBC reported violent actions taken against Kashmiri civilians and smaller minorities. That violence included arson attacks on Christian churches, and forced re-conversions from Christianity to Hinduism which often involved violent assaults. Other reported instances included sexual abuse and the rape of nuns and young Christian girls. Members have already referred to the systematic rape, abuse and sexual attacks on women and girls in an awful, violent fashion, which is totally unacceptable. Christian priests and other key religious figures have been murdered. We in the House who engage in the democratic process and have influence cannot sit by and idly watch murders being carried out with no redress without at least attempting to do something about it. There must be thorough investigations, and there must be accountability for these atrocious murders and the genocidal campaign against Christians in Kashmir.
During 2008, anti-Christian riots perpetrated by Hindu nationalists killed at least 50 Christian people, and arson attacks were made on some 730 houses and 95 Christian churches. These are not just statistics; they are the facts of life for many people. Stones were often thrown with force through people’s windows, and still very little was done on their behalf. The police turned a blind eye. Violent attacks against minority groups have been an ongoing issue in Kashmir. I strongly believe that the discrimination must come to an end, and that we must play a part in that. It is often said in the House that evil triumphs when good people do nothing, but that does not make the point any less important. We must not ignore this issue. Through the House, through the debate and through our influence and our Commonwealth ties, we must do something. We must stick up for those who cannot speak for themselves. We must be a voice for those who look to us to speak on their behalf.
The innocent people of Kashmir have faced murder, forced disappearance, brutal attacks and the destruction of their own homes. India and Pakistan have called curfews to try to restrain the violence. General strikes and protests have also been called to halt violence for a limited time, but without success. Senior figures have encountered an escalation of tension, which increases fear of an escalation of conflict between both sides. That is a fear that we have: we fear things could get worse. The steps that have already been taken are not enough; we must do more.
We must speak for all those whose cries are ringing today in our ears. We in this greatest seat of democracy are duty-bound to respond; we have the greatest opportunity to speak on behalf of those people. Our voice has been, and must continue to be, very clear from all parts of this Chamber and all parties. We look to our Minister today to outline action that will bring about change now. We must change the policies in Kashmir. Those people need us to speak for them, and I believe we are duty-bound to do so.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this important debate. We have heard some magnificent contributions, some from those of us with roots in India and Pakistan who speak from a hugely personal perspective, and some from others who are clearly speaking strongly and with such determination and passion on behalf of constituents. I hope the feeling in the Chamber will be hugely instructive to the Minister in terms of the direction that Members would like the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to take on future relations with India and Pakistan and the issue of Kashmir.
The Scottish National party fully supports this motion, which calls on the Government to encourage Pakistan and India to commence peace negotiations to establish a long-term solution on the future governance of Kashmir. It is absolutely vital that we use the influence that we have as friends of both nations to encourage people and authorities within Kashmir to work constructively together to calm tensions and reduce violence. In particular, the Indian authorities, both in New Delhi and Srinagar, should be encouraged to engage in genuine and constructive dialogue with moderate factions in Indian-administered Kashmir and help empower such groups over armed militants.
We wholeheartedly support the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions, and call on all parties and the international community to recognise that right. We urge the UK Government and the international community to fully support UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his efforts at mediation and serving as an honest broker between India and Pakistan.
We understand that this is a difficult and long-lasting issue and that Kashmir has been a disputed territory since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, but over the past year we have seen a significant and deeply regrettable escalation in protest and violence. There was considerable unrest in Kashmir throughout 2016, particularly in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, beginning in July when Burhan Wani, a well- known and popular militant of Hizbul Mujahideen, was shot dead by the Indian security forces. As we have already heard, his funeral drew 50,000 mourners, and in the ensuing violence over 100 people were killed and 11,000 injured, a great many sustaining serious eye injuries when fired upon by Indian police using “non-lethal” pellet guns. We have heard much in this respect from many Members in the Chamber today.
Human Rights Watch has called on the Indian authorities to launch an impartial investigation into the use of both lethal force and pellet guns. On 6 December, Physicians for Human Rights issued a report accusing Indian police and paramilitary forces of using excessive, indiscriminate force against protesters and blocking medical care since the start of the current protests. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) made an excellent point about human rights: wherever human rights abuse occurs, we must call it out. But it must feel to many people in various countries that we prioritise the human rights of some over those of others; this cannot, must not, will not continue.
We urge the Indian security forces to exercise much greater caution and restraint in their methods of crowd and riot control, including by discontinuing their practice of firing pellet guns at protesters. The authorities must allow full and unrestricted medical care in Kashmir and above all facilitate treatment by specialist eye doctors to the many people injured by these guns over these past months.
At the same time, we urge organisers of legitimate protests to deter their supporters from engaging in violence of any kind. Although the level of unrest de-escalated over the remainder of 2016, largely owing to the decisions of separatist leaders who have gradually scaled down their programme of shutdown and protests, local leaders have promised more to come.
Of great concern are the continued clashes between Indian and Pakistani forces which have been ongoing for some time. There have been exchanges of fire along the line of control, including the Indian artillery shelling on 16 December that reportedly hit a school bus in Mohra, Kotli district, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing the driver and wounding several children. Most recently, on 15 January Indian security forces killed three militants in an operation described by the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs as
“a continued act of state terrorism”.
This escalation in military action is of great concern, and it would be wise for both Governments to reflect on their actions and tone down the increasingly violent rhetoric.
Further to this military escalation, there have been increasing and unprecedented suggestions that the Indian Government are considering using water as a means of applying pressure on Pakistan. Tension in Kashmir should not be allowed to affect other aspects of the India-Pakistan relationship, such as the Indus waters treaty.
Pakistan is hugely dependent on the six rivers of the Indus basin, all of which flow through India before reaching Pakistan. The Indus basin provides drinking water and livelihoods to almost three quarters of Pakistan’s population of 192 million. More than 95% of Pakistan’s irrigated land is in the Indus basin, and farm income amounts to a quarter of Pakistan’s GDP. In 1960, the two countries signed the Indus waters treaty which guaranteed Pakistan’s continued access to water and provides for inspections, data exchanges and arbitration processes administered by the World Bank. The treaty is regarded as the most successful example of an international agreement on water and has survived three wars without modification. However, India is increasingly threatening to revise the treaty or to moderate Pakistan’s access to water as a form of leverage. This is a deeply regrettable act, which could have significant and dangerous implications for the region.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a review of the treaty in September, outlining specific treaty provisions which India could use to apply pressure on Pakistan, and stated:
“Blood and water cannot flow simultaneously.”
Sartaj Aziz, foreign policy adviser to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, responded by saying that revocation of the treaty would be considered an “act of war”.
On 12 December, the World Bank halted two Pakistani and Indian arbitration processes under the treaty, citing concerns that current tensions could endanger the treaty. We urge all parties to uphold the Indus waters treaty, both in letter and in spirit, and not to use vital access to water as a means of diplomatic leverage—that is just so wrong.
Within the scope of the treaty, any changes should be mutually agreed through the proper channels and only after very careful consideration of the humanitarian and economic consequences for the people living in the Indus basin. We encourage the UK Government and the international community to provide all necessary support to the World Bank in its arbitration of the treaty and to encourage India and Pakistan to resume meetings of the treaty commission and to continue to successfully implement the treaty provisions regardless of tensions caused by other developments.
In conclusion, The SNP absolutely supports today’s motion and this hugely constructive debate. The Government must continue to encourage both Pakistan and India to start peace negotiations as soon as possible. The Kashmiri people should be able to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions. It is in everyone’s interests that a long-term solution is found on the future governance of the beautiful place that is Kashmir.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The hon. Gentleman spoke very eloquently on behalf of his constituents of Pakistani and Kashmiri origin. I also thank all Members from across the House for contributing to an excellent debate that has highlighted many serious matters including human rights abuses and the intensification of violence while advocating the utmost need for conflict resolution instead of military escalation and the brokering of talks between the Pakistani and Indian Administrations.
We have heard powerful speeches on human rights abuses and civil liberties, notably from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) questioned the political will of the UN for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The right to self-determination was mentioned by, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). Calls for the Government to work to settle the Kashmir situation were made, notably, by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin).
An element of controversy was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). Our historical responsibility for Kashmir was highlighted by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). The role of China, to which not a great deal of reference was made during the debate, was mentioned in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Many Members spoke passionately on behalf of their constituents of Kashmiri origin.
The Kashmiri people have seen a perpetual rise in conflict over the past year. It is the worst spate of violence in the region since 2010, when 110 people lost their lives. Inside and outside this House, I and many others have already called for a ban on pellet guns, tear gas and live ammunition in civilian areas. Will the Minister update us on the current situation in the Jammu region, with particular regard to the police and the Muslim community?
Some 400 people in Kashmir have been detained by Indian security forces under the regressive Public Safety Act, which allows preventive detention for offences defined by vague, overbroad terms and violates international due process standards. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International called it a “lawless law” and called for the Indian authorities to end its use. If people are suspected of committing offences, they should be properly charged and given fair trials. Does the Minister agree with that assessment of the PSA?
The region has seen the introduction and implementation of numerous curfews over this disruptive period, the longest of which lasted 53 days. Mobile phone services have been down and media blackouts have been imposed, leading to numerous protests, including a series of general strikes, the closure of schools and universities and regular public rallies against Indian rule. Of course, this is not a one-sided affair. We also encourage Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his Government to condemn and take immediate action against abusive militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India, which would be an important move to help extinguish the conflict in the region. Will the UK Government consider their future military aid and sales, including programmes of military co-operation, to Pakistan on the condition that it begins to take significant steps to address attacks by militant groups in the region?
The nuclear arms race between the two countries is also of concern and has escalated over the past 12 months. That factor is intertwined with the relationship that either side seeks to have with China or the new United States Administration. Will the Minister update the House on whether the Government have raised any issues with the Indian or Pakistani Governments on the matter of their substantial shift in nuclear arsenal investment and testing?
The unrest has led to the tragic loss of over 80 lives in violent clashes since the beginning of July, including a police officer and 19 soldiers killed in a militant attack on a security base. Sadly, the violence continues to this day, with some 4,000 people wounded over this seven-month period. The line of control is at the heart of the divisional tension, with both countries cranking up the rhetoric and levels of military action on the border. Given the history of the line of control, what are the Government specifically doing to counter that ongoing retaliation? Even as recently as 2015, such action had disastrous costs when Indian and Pakistani border guards traded gunfire, leaving nine civilians dead and another 62 wounded.
As a symbolic destination for her first prime ministerial trip abroad, we welcomed the Prime Minister’s visit to India given our countries’ historic ties and heritage. However, like many other hon. Members, I want to know from the Minister what discussions the Prime Minister had with Prime Minister Modi on that visit. The visit came at the height of the current troubles, so will the Minister tell us what progress has resulted from those diplomatic talks? The Minister would find support for such a question among his own Back Benchers, notably the hon. Member for Wealden. In addition, will the Minister also inform us whether the Foreign Secretary ever discussed the letter sent to him just prior to the Prime Minister’s visit by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), in which she raised the issues of human rights and civil liberties in Kashmir?
It should be stated for the record that Labour party policy on Kashmir has not changed since we were in government: we must allow all parties who are directly involved to determine their future through peaceful dialogue and co-operation. We also acknowledge the importance of the work of international organisations, the UN in particular, and their efforts to negotiate with all parties and member states involved to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table. We continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to seek a lasting solution on Kashmir in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions, which take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Their wishes are fundamental to the success of the process and to obtaining peace in the region.
Through the conflict prevention programme, the Labour Government funded several projects designed to support efforts to facilitate dialogue, which addressed the causes and impact of conflict and proposed to improve quality of life for Kashmiris. In 2010, an opinion poll was conducted on both sides of the line of control for the first time since the UN-brokered ceasefire in 1949. Despite the complexity of the political situation, it found that there are other clear concerns for the Kashmiri people, with 81% saying that unemployment was the most significant problem. Government corruption, poor economic development and human rights abuses also polled highly. Kashmiri citizens wish for an end to the indecision, the dispute, the division and the disruption so that they can access economic prosperity, good education and vital healthcare. Those should be the main points of consideration in all dialogue and actions in 2017. The need for a rapid response to the situation in Kashmir is now upon us.
I hope that the whole House and the Minister will agree that the UN must be involved at every stage of the process. On his first day in office, the new UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, pledged to make 2017 a year for peace. I hope those words lead to a rapprochement and then, step by step, a long-term resolution between the two countries. However, the first step must be the acceptance of the rule of humanitarian law and the starting point for negotiations between the bordering nations must be to uphold the UN universal declaration of human rights, therefore ensuring equal and inalienable rights for all Kashmiri people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
We have had a long, detailed debate with powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, and I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing this important debate and thank the members of the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group for their commitment to the issue and for welcoming me to their meeting in December.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said in his speech, the region has a long, complex history. The situation in Kashmir continues to attract significant public attention and parliamentary interest in the UK, as shown by this debate, not least because of the thousands of British nationals with connections to Kashmir. An estimated two thirds of British Pakistanis hail from Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Before I respond to the many points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, I will briefly set out the Government’s position on Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations. A number of Members set out what they believe to be the Government’s position, and I can confirm that what they said is consistent with our position. It has been the long-standing position of successive Governments of all hues, and the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) has also stated that the Opposition’s position has not changed.
India and Pakistan are both long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom, and we have significant links to both countries through Indian and Pakistani diaspora communities living in the UK—I have many in my constituency. We also have strong bilateral relations with both countries, which we hope to make even stronger.
The long-standing position of the UK is that it can neither prescribe a solution to the situation in Kashmir nor act as a mediator. It is for the Governments of India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. In our discussions with both India and Pakistan, we encourage both sides to maintain positive dialogue, but the pace and scope of that dialogue is for them to determine.
I will address the issues in the order in which they came up in the debate. First, on the violence across the line of control, I agree that a strong relationship between India and Pakistan is crucial to maintaining regional stability and prosperity. I am pleased that the escalation of incidents between India and Pakistan along the line of control showed some signs of decreasing in the run-up to Christmas, but there have been recent reports of renewed activity this year.
A number of Members talked about combating terrorism. As Members will be aware, following the attack on the Indian military base in Uri last September, the Foreign Secretary publicly condemned all forms of terrorism in the region and stated that the UK
“stands shoulder to shoulder with India in the fight against terrorism, and in bringing the perpetrators to justice.”
He reiterated that message during his visit to Pakistan shortly before Christmas.
Following her visit to India last November, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi released a joint statement in which they reiterated their strong commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. They also stressed that there can be no justification for acts of terror on any grounds whatsoever.
The UK and Pakistan are, of course, also committed to working together to combat the terrorist threat, and the extremism that sustains it, in line with human rights. The UK regularly highlights to Pakistan at the highest level the importance of taking effective action against all terrorist groups operating in Pakistan, as Pakistan has committed to do. The UK will continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to ensure that channels of dialogue remain open as a means of resolving differences.
Many Members mentioned the use of pellet guns. I have said in this House on a number of occasions that I am very concerned about the violence in Indian-administered Kashmir, and I extend my condolences to the victims of violence and their families. I have also discussed the use of pellet guns and alternative methods of crowd control with representatives of the Indian Government. The use of pellet guns in Kashmir has recently come under review by the Government of India. The results of the review have not yet been shared publicly, but I understand that alternative methods are now being used. I believe that, since September 2016, pellet guns have been replaced by chilli powder shells as a preferred non-lethal crowd control device. From media reporting, it appears that the number of fatalities and injuries has since declined, which I am sure the whole House will welcome. We will, of course, continue to monitor the situation.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, and we are aware of the concerns regarding allegations of the immunity from prosecution for Indian armed forces personnel in Indian-administered Kashmir under the PSA and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. The Indian Government have put in place a mechanism that allows people to request that they investigate such concerns, and we expect all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegations of human rights abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
I also understand that, on 11 January, Chief Minister Mufti told the state Assembly that the Indian Government have ordered the establishment of special teams to investigate the deaths of civilians and to look at the involvement of police personnel during the unrest over the past five months.
Alok Sharma
Of course we continue to monitor the whole situation in the region and, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will talk about the UN and other such matters.
The establishment of dialogue and confidence-building have also been mentioned, and the UK already supports a number of existing initiatives to encourage open dialogue between Pakistan and India on the basis that those attending are able to share their views in confidence. We hope that such opportunities will continue.
On the motion itself, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North calls for the British Government to raise the situation in Kashmir at the UN. As I have set out, the British Government believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Of course we stand ready to support both countries in that goal, but it is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator. He made a powerful speech in the Westminster Hall debate in 2014, in which he said:
“The Governments of India and Pakistan are the principal parties who can bring about a resolution of the problem.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 365WH.]
That really is the case.
The UN and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights were raised by a number of Members. As a “permanent five” member of the UN Security Council, and as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, the UK is a long-standing supporter of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and I am aware that the high commissioner has requested access to Kashmir from both the Indian and Pakistani Governments. Of course we encourage all states to consider visits by the high commissioner.
Imran Hussain
It is absolutely right that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has extended that request, and Pakistan has sent a letter saying that it will accept if India accepts. India has not got back to the high commissioner. What will the Minister be doing to encourage India to accept that request?
Alok Sharma
Let me reiterate the point I made to the hon. Gentleman, which is that we encourage all states to consider visits by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and I know that we have had this discussion previously.
We had a discussion about the Prime Minister’s visit to India in November. Of course, as Members would expect, she discussed a range of issues, including on Kashmir, and I hope that will be a source of reassurance to Members.
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman should take comfort from the fact that the subject of Kashmir was discussed by the two Prime Ministers. It was a bilateral discussion and he, as someone who has been in government, will know that we cannot comment on private discussions. Today, we have also had a discussion about the Foreign Secretary’s visit to India, and of course he is also discussing a range of issues, including regional security issues.
Let me conclude by saying that the UK Government will continue to encourage and support both India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, in line with the wishes of the people of Kashmir. We cannot, however, mediate in the process. I am fully aware of the strength of feeling about Kashmir among many people in Britain, and of course in this House, and I am glad that this debate has given me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position. Once again, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for raising issues today and for their contributions.
Mr Nuttall
This has been an historic debate, comprehensively covering the extremely important matters relating to Kashmir. I thank all 19 Members who have spoken in the debate and those who have made interventions. I particularly wish to thank the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), who spoke for the Scottish National party, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for their contributions. I hope that in the light of this debate, the Minister will reflect on the many positive suggestions for action that have been made. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the escalation in violence and breaches of international human rights on the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kashmir; calls on the Government to raise the matter at the United Nations; and further calls on the Government to encourage Pakistan and India to commence peace negotiations to establish a long-term solution on the future governance of Kashmir based on the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions.
Holocaust Memorial Day
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Before I ask Peter Kyle to move the motion, may I point out to Members that we are very limited on time, with 13 Members wishing to speak? I am therefore going to impose an absolute limit of 15 minutes, including interventions, on the opening speaker and suggest an informal limit of five minutes for Back Benchers. If that is not adhered to, I am going to have to drop it down to four or even three minutes. However, I hope it will all go well and everyone can have five minutes.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2017.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to rush my speech after that introduction. Let me start by thanking the hon. Members who supported me in the application for this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it and all the Members, from both sides of the House, who are participating today. Holocaust Memorial Day was established in 2001 as a result of Andrew Dismore’s private Member’s Bill. We owe him a debt of gratitude because since that time it has provided our nation with the annual opportunity to pause to reflect on the holocaust. It is necessary to pause because of the enormity of the holocaust and the impact it had on millions of individuals, on families and on humanity as a whole. It is not something we can consider lightly.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Towards the end of last year, I visited Auschwitz with a group of students from my home town of Newcastle. It was an incredibly challenging and moving visit, but it was made really powerful by the presence of so many young people from the region. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that we also owe a debt to those at the Holocaust Educational Trust, who make this visit possible for so many young people to ensure that we never forget and that we never repeat?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for that intervention, and in a few minutes I will very much echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments. I will carry on with my speech and not take any more interventions, as we can see the ferocity with which Madam Deputy Speaker is clearly encouraging us to make progress. I will get through my speech and allow others to speak.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “How can life go on?” It invites us to consider how our generation can comprehend the holocaust and act on its lessons when so few of those who survived it remain with us. We are entering an age when the lived experience of the second world war and all its horrors is being replaced by one where we experience it through stories handed down, or through the media, books or film. Because fewer survivors remain, it is easier to get away with trivialising those events or making light of them. It is not uncommon these days to hear people who are officious being described as having “Nazi tendencies” or to hear those in public life mindlessly calling others “concentration camp commandants” simply for disagreeing with them or feeling that they have strong views. Those sorts of comments are extraordinarily irresponsible because they casually draw a line from those who deliberately attempted, through state murder, to kill every member of an ethnic or a religious group—the first and only time this has happened in history—to 21st century daily life in a country such as Britain. To do that not only trivialises the horrific events of the past, but makes the job of those who set out on the malicious path of outright holocaust denial that much easier.
For the reasons I have outlined, I completely agree with the words used just last night by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) at a Holocaust Educational Trust event. He urged people
“to push back when people lazily reach for glib comparisons that belittle what happened, calling those we disagree with ‘Nazis’ or claiming someone’s actions are ‘just like the Holocaust’. Ultimately, we must be prepared to do that most un-British of things—we have to make a scene. Maybe that’ll be in private. Maybe in the media. Maybe on Twitter…What’s certain is that if we don’t speak out against hatred and anti-Semitism it will become normalised. It will become part of everyday life. And once that happens, the consequences once again will be tragic.”
He was speaking as a Minister and a Conservative MP. I see his predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), is present, and I look forward to hearing his contribution, which I am sure will echo those views and elaborate on them. I stand here as a Labour MP, yet I share the Secretary of State’s sentiments. I look to see how I, and my party, can strive harder to avoid language and actions that are, or are perceived to be, anti-Semitic. As individuals and as a political party, we must do more. Not only should we react swiftly when there is anti-Semitic activity; we should be doing more to prevent it in the first place, because the point of offence is the point at which we know we have failed.
It is hard even to imagine the events we are remembering today, because of the sheer scale of human suffering involved. Approximately six million Jewish men, women and children were murdered by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during the second world war. Anti-Semitism was the defining element of Nazi ideology. The persecution of Jews started immediately after Hitler’s accession to power in 1933, with policies designed to force emigration. The intensity, ferocity and brutality of such policies escalated throughout Nazi rule, resulting in mass murder and genocide. It is therefore understandable that the holocaust plays such a painful and powerful role in modern Jewish culture, both here in Britain and around the world.
I am fortunate to have a large and thriving Jewish community in my constituency of Hove and Portslade, which is proudly home to four well-attended and active synagogues. The community plays an active role in all aspects of life in our beautiful city on the south coast, from participating in festivals to hosting a dedicated Remembrance Day event to remember Jews who fell fighting the Nazis as part of the allied offensive. The community has welcomed me to events and helped me to understand Jewish culture and traditions, including the impact and importance of the holocaust in modern Jewish life. Rabbi Andre and Rabbi Elle in particular have invested many hours in answering my questions and discussing the complex history and modern faces of Judaism, both in my own community and further afield.
The great thing about a group that is so welcoming and integrated into the ebb and flow of community life is that it inspires others to share, learn and join in, which is why next week I will proudly join students and staff at Blatchington Mill, a local school that is holding an event to mark Holocaust Memorial Day at which people from throughout the city will come together to reflect on the meaning of the holocaust for today’s generations.
As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day next week, it is appropriate that we in this House memorialise these terrible events. The memorial date was chosen to respect the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau by allied forces on 27 January 1945. The death camp sited in the Polish town of Auschwitz has become symbolic of the holocaust because of the sheer scale of murder that occurred there: 1.1 million lives were savagely ended at that place.
In November last year, I visited Auschwitz with 200 students from throughout Sussex, along with my colleague from across the Floor, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). Our visit was under the auspices of the Holocaust Educational Trust. I cannot praise highly enough the thoughtful, engaging and extremely powerful way the trust guides students through the process of learning about and experiencing Auschwitz. Before the visit, students get together in a set of structured seminars to learn the history, policies and facts behind the holocaust, even meeting a holocaust survivor. They then visit Auschwitz. Finally, when they return, they meet again to talk about the lessons and what it means for them as individuals and us as a society—the past, the present and the future. These fortunate young people will carry the burden of knowing the full horror meted out to Jews by Nazi Germany. They will also benefit from the wisdom that experience bestows.
Two of the students on my visit were from Brighton and Hove—Joe and Mattie from Cardinal Newman and Brighton College schools. They showed the depth of thinking, sensitivity and thoughtfulness that makes me so proud of young people today. Together, we saw: the cells in which people who tried to escaped were bricked up and starved to death; the wall against which so many people were shot dead that the ground beneath could no longer soak up the blood; the desperately cold cabins where people slept; the train tracks that brought people to their deaths in cattle trucks; and the sidings where doctors—the people trained to save and enhance life—used their training to decide who was strong enough to work and who should be put to death that very day. For those of us who celebrate the good of which humanity is capable, it is a shattering place to visit.
At the end of our tour, guided by extraordinary staff from the Auschwitz museum, we gathered at the top of the Auschwitz-Birkenau rail tracks. We stood directly between the remains of two former gas chambers where tens of thousands of people lost their lives. There in the darkness, we listened to poetry read by students. Then a rabbi sang prayers, which echoed around the still remains of huts, gas chambers and the forest. The beauty of the prayers, for a moment, pierced the horror of our location. The symbolism of Jewish prayers being sung in that place was lost on no one.
As we departed, we left behind us lighted candles along the tracks. From the entrance, they looked like a blazing pathway of light into the terrible darkness that still hangs over that place. That is the image that remains most strong in my mind, because a blazing pathway of light is what history needs from our generation and those in the future. It will come in the form of remembering, of learning and of being brave enough to confront hatred. For those of us in public life, it will mean using the power we have to unite and temper at times of anger and confusion and never to exploit.
Those are just some of the many lessons that I have learned from listening and discussing not only the holocaust, but its role in shaping modern Jewish life in Hove and across Britain. It is also why moments of reflection such as this, in the House of Commons through to the community schools and living rooms across the country, are so desperately important.
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) who made a very thoughtful speech. I have to say that I agreed entirely with what he said.
Last April, I visited Treblinka, the former Nazi death camp, which the people of Poland have preserved as testimony to man’s inhumanity to man. No country suffered more than Poland and the world is grateful for the way in which it has acted as the custodian of these absolutely terrible places.
Treblinka was unambiguously a death camp. Most victims survived only a few hours, and those who were too frail to make it to the gas chambers were escorted to a hospital, which was a façade—it was an open pit at which they were shot and then thrown in. Some of the victims were still alive when they were thrown in.
The Nazis, in their shame, destroyed their apparatus of genocide in the face of the advancing Soviet troops. The best estimate is that somewhere between 700,000 and 900,000 Jews and around 2,000 Roma were killed in Treblinka’s gas chambers. More Jews were killed at Treblinka than at any other Nazi extermination camp apart from Auschwitz. It is a grim place. There is a dignified monument and carefully laid stones remembering the different communities.
I laid a wreath at the site and following the visit, as most politicians do, I tweeted my observations. Within minutes I received a tweet that said:
“No one died at Treblinka, it was a transit camp. There were no gas chambers, no crematoria, no mass graves”.
I have no idea whether the person who sent me that tweet believed it or not, and it is too easy to dismiss this as yet another example of our post-truth world’s fake news, which is all too prevalent on social media, but I think there is something more sinister going on. Members will recall the long-established 10 stages of a holocaust or genocide starting with classification and working through persecution and extermination. Of course, the 10th and final stage is holocaust denial: it did not happen; the numbers are exaggerated; there were not that many Jews in the first place; they brought it on themselves; the Jews are using it to justify their actions. To forget or belittle continues the holocaust.
This month sees the release of the film “Denial”, which depicts one of the most infamous libel trials of the past 20 years involving the American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, and David Irving. If one looks at the trailer, and at the comments made beneath it, one can see that there are thousands of abusive comments claiming that the holocaust was a fake. Only a few days ago David Irving claimed that he is inspiring a new generation of “holocaust sceptics”—a fancy way of dressing up holocaust denial.
It is in that context that we should see the building of the new holocaust memorial and learning centre just a short walk from this Chamber in Victoria Gardens. I am proud to be a member of the foundation alongside the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). It will establish the memorial in a massively important place. An international design competition was launched in September 2016, and 92 teams have expressed an interest. Ten were shortlisted and when the competition ends on Monday we will see them on the web and will take the exhibition around the country.
It will be a lasting monument of which we can be immensely proud, but, as we are running short of time and others want to speak, and, given that last year we lost Elie Wiesel, I would like to end with a quote from him that explains why we are doing this. He said in his Nobel prize acceptance speech:
“What all victims need above all is to know that they are not alone; that we are not forgetting them, that when their voices are stifled we shall lend them ours, that while their freedom depends on ours, the quality of our freedom depends on theirs”.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome this debate and the fact that it was a decision of this Parliament, made on an all-party basis, that has led to our having Holocaust Memorial Day in this country. Holocaust Memorial Day gives us an opportunity to focus on reflections about the enormity of the holocaust and the extermination of millions of European Jews with the aim of eradicating European Jewry, who were seen as a malignant, evil force, as well as an opportunity to reflect on current anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is indeed a virus. It spans different religions and different political parties, and it changes its form over time. I very much welcome the Government’s acceptance of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, because it is important that we focus on what anti-Semitism means in this day and in this era, as well as what it has meant historically.
Figures from the Community Security Trust show us shockingly that there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism and of anti-Semitic discourse. It is important not to exaggerate that—most British Jews will go about their lives without experiencing anti-Semitism—but there is a profound unease across the UK’s Jewish community with the increase in both anti-Semitic incidents and comments. As the Community Security Trust report on anti-Semitic discourse shows, that sometimes reflects insinuations and allusions if not direct anti-Semitism.
It is always important to remember that anti-Semitism does not lie solely in one religion. Historically, Christianity was often the source of anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism is found in extreme Islamic sources, too. We have only to look at the Hamas charter to see very clear, explicit anti-Semitism, with references to Jews wanting to rule the world.
Anti-Semitism is not only found on the right. Conventionally, people sometimes think that anti-Semitism is confined to the right of politics. That is not, and has never been, the case. It is a fact that people who declare themselves anti-racist are not necessarily opposed to anti-Semitism, and do not necessarily even understand what anti-Semitism is. Shocking as I find that, as a person of the left and a Labour party member, I recognise that there is a fight-back and that it is being led by non-Jewish people as well as by Jews.
This week, there has been a showing of the film “Denial” here in Parliament. The film shows, as the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) mentioned, the trial where the holocaust denier, David Irving, sued Deborah Lipstadt. He was alleging that the holocaust did not happen. It is truly shocking that today, as that film is being shown, and as he was defeated so conclusively—indeed, he had sued Deborah Lipstadt, not the other way around—it is reported that there are more supporters for the lie of holocaust denial, including more online supporters who appear to be gathering new force. This is a reminder of the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day, this debate and the continuing role of the UK Government, with all-party support, in combating modern day manifestations of anti-Semitism.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to co-sponsor this debate to mark this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day and to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, on which I serve.
Last November, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and I stood with 200 young people from across the south-east of England on the train tracks at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where 1.1 million Jewish men, women and children were murdered by the Nazis. I had travelled to Poland as part of the “Lessons from Auschwitz” project, run by the excellent Holocaust Educational Trust.
The train tracks run right into the camp. Ahead are the watchtowers where the guards would have been positioned at all times. At the end of the tracks are the remains of the gas chambers. To the left and right, as far as the eye can see, are the barracks where those selected to work were held.
As we stood on the train tracks, our educator read to us an extract from a young boy who stood on those same train tracks some 74 years earlier. That extract has stayed with me and I want to share it now:
“‘Men to the left! Women to the right!’ Eight words were spoken quietly, indifferently, without emotion. Eight short, simple words. Yet that was the moment when I parted from my mother. I had not had time to think, but already I felt the pressure of my father’s hand; we were alone. For a part of a second I glimpsed my mother and my sister moving away to the right. Tzipora held my mother’s hand. I saw them disappear into the distance; my mother was stroking my sister’s fair hair, as though to protect her, while I walked on with my father and the other men. And I did not know that in that place, at that moment, I was parting from my mother and Tzipora forever. I went on walking, my father held on to my hand.”
These are the memories of Professor Elie Wiesel, Nobel laureate, who has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles). Elie spent the rest of his life working to ensure that the holocaust was never forgotten. He passed away in July 2016 aged 87, just a few months before my visit.
Today we debate this horror, and we speak in honour of Elie and all those who either perished in the camps or, against all odds, survived. Many of those who lived on dedicated the rest of their lives to ensuring that their experiences would never be repeated. Their stories act as a reminder of the evil that mankind can deliver to itself when hatred, prejudice and violence are left unchecked.
Yesterday in Parliament, I spoke to six young people who have made the same trip to Auschwitz over the past few years with the Holocaust Educational Trust. They have all been young ambassadors for the trust and have devised imaginative ideas to ensure that the horrors of the holocaust act as a flame to guard against the darkness of hatred and division. Time does not permit me to mention all their stories, but I will mention the final young ambassador I met—a lady called Charlotte Heard.
Charlotte told me that she had been keen to develop her knowledge of the holocaust, as she had a great-grandmother who was in a concentration camp in the last year of the war. Little was spoken about the experience and Charlotte lost her great-grandmother in 2015, motivating Charlotte to complete her “”Lessons from Auschwitz” project in April last year. On her return from Auschwitz, Charlotte and a fellow attendee from her school set about creating a memorial that would inspire others. This is how she described her work to me:
“We wanted to involve the students within our school as a way of uniting them. We have a school that has 40+ different languages. We thought this was very poignant as many cultures and races were victims of persecution, but of course in particular the Jews. Therefore the hands represent the many different students within our school and although they may be different in appearance, language or traditions, their hands are something that unite them, and join them together. The words I have painted on one of the panels read; ‘I believe in the sun, even when it is not shining. I believe in love, even when I cannot feel it. I believe in God, even when he is silent.’ These words were written inside a cell in the Cologne concentration camp, and we chose this because it shows the struggle that the Jews had faced. However the prisoner had never lost faith in his God. Therefore, as ambassadors whose role is to ensure we make the existence of the Holocaust in our past live on, these are key words that could inspire all the students in our school.”
These young ambassadors are doing an outstanding job of reminding their peers of what happened during the second world war. The importance could never be greater. First-hand experiences truly deliver the power but, 75 years on, these voices are being lost. We therefore have to find imaginative ways to appeal to the consciences of others. We live in a society where negativity, cynicism and casual insults are never far from the surface.
We should never assume that the horrors of the Third Reich could never be repeated in Europe. The Germany of the 1930s had culture, history and people of differing creeds living side by side, yet the murmurings of hate quickly turned an entire country into a place where sending Jews, Romany Gypsies and other groups to their graves was accepted by millions of people who had previously lived and worked among them. The noise of hatred in 2017 may be low, but a civilised society must aim to switch it off before it can deafen us.
I conclude by thanking Karen Pollock and her team at the Holocaust Educational Trust for continuing to ensure that this country remembers the unspeakable evil that created the holocaust. I also thank the trust for delivering these new voices—the young and not so young—who will continue to ensure that we never forget what occurred and that we do all we can to stop the undercurrents that, if left unchecked, could make it occur again.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Holocaust Memorial Day marks a crime that we must never forget. We must never forget the genocide committed by Nazi Germany, and we must always remind ourselves of the horrors that anti-Semitism can produce.
At 10 am on 27 January—Holocaust Memorial Day itself—the Holocaust Educational Trust will host a live webcast with holocaust survivor Mala Tribich. The webcast will be livestreamed to schools across the UK, and more than 600 schools have signed up so far. The filming will take place at Kingsmead School in my constituency. I am very proud that it is happening there, and I commend the school for hosting it. The event at Kingsmead is very important, and it will have a significant impact. We thank Mala for being willing to share her terrible experiences and give her testimony to educate our young people. We also thank the Holocaust Educational Trust for organising the event.
Even when it makes for difficult hearing, we have a moral duty to listen to holocaust testimony. Survivors speak not only for themselves but for those who did not survive to tell their story. Arek Hersh is one such survivor. When he was 11, the Nazis invaded his home town in Poland and transferred him to the Lodz ghetto. He was then taken to an SS camp called Otoschno, near Poznan. After 18 months, Arek was one of only 11 of the original 2,500 men left alive.
Arek escaped transfer to the gas chambers at Chelmno twice, before being transferred to Auschwitz-Birkenau. At Auschwitz, he was selected for death by Dr Josef Mengele, but when he saw that healthier and fitter people were in the other line, he ran across while the SS guards were distracted. Arek was a slave labourer in Auschwitz, before being forced on a death march to Buchenwald. He was then transferred to Theresienstadt, where he was liberated by the Russian army.
Arek describes life at Auschwitz and the death march:
“We were chosen to work on agriculture for the SS. First with two horses they ploughed the field and for fertilisation they bring us ashes from the crematorium and”
we
“strew it on the ground and the bones, you could feel the bones.
We marched out on the 18th January 1945, the death march, and we walked for about 3 days without any food in the striped pyjama, we were freezing, it was so cold.
It was terrible.
And we arrived at the station and we were loaded on the station and we were taken to a place called Buchenwald next to Weimar in Germany.
The camp was about 8km from Weimar in a forest. And there we were more dead than alive when we arrived.”
Arek lives in Leeds today, and is now 88 years old. His first-hand testimony reminds us of the brutality of Nazi anti-Semitism. His testimony is also a powerful rebuttal to those today who continue the awful practice of holocaust denial. Let us be clear: those who minimise, trivialise, distort or deny the horrors of the holocaust do so to legitimise the anti-Semitism that fuelled it. We must recognise that whenever people claim the gas chambers are a myth, argue that the holocaust is Jewish propaganda, distort Nazi history, minimise the number of holocaust victims or attack holocaust memorial days, they do not do so out of historical interest or a desire for debate; they do so from nothing but prejudice, bigotry and naked anti-Semitism.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Do not the testimonies that my right hon. Friend is referring to show the continuing relevance and importance of Holocaust Memorial Day? The vast majority of people in this country are decent, but we have seen a rise in hate crime—41% between July 2015 and July 2016. Although it has since gone down, it is still higher than it was, so the continuing relevance of those testimonies speaks to us all.
Joan Ryan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I would add that we must never be bystanders.
When Arek wrote his autobiography, he called it “A Detail of History”. He chose that title as a direct riposte to French fascist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who disgustingly referred to the Nazi gas chambers in those terms.
Our words of remembrance today will mean nothing if we do not commit ourselves to action. Preserving the memory of the murdered is not a theoretical exercise. We must act to oppose all those who deny, distort or dismiss the holocaust in the present day. As Arek Hersh has said:
“What hurts the most is not the actions of the oppressor, but the silence of the bystander.”
We must support the brilliant work done by groups such as HOPE not hate to counter racism and fascism in our society. Perhaps most of all, we must support the fantastic work done by the Holocaust Educational Trust.
The only way to truly eradicate racism, anti-Semitism and holocaust denial in our society is through educating people. This is what Arek Hersh has devoted his life to for the past 20 years. In his words,
“If you talk about”
the Holocaust
“to people…people learn, and if anything like that could come up again they would stand up against it, so that’s why I talk about it all the time.”
In his words we must follow. We must remember, we must mourn, and above all, we must educate, so that racism and anti-Semitism can never flourish again.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan). I commend the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for the way in which he introduced this debate.
Jewish people have suffered anti-Semitism throughout the centuries; there is nothing new in that. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) reminded us, it is still rife not only all over the world but in this country, and we can never forget that fact. However, it reached its peak with the systematic attempt by the Nazis to wipe out Jews from across the world.
I grew up in an area where we were educated among Jewish people, Hindu people, Muslims, and people of all religions and origins, but the holocaust was never talked about. On my first to Israel in 1992, I saw not the wonderful museum that is now Yad Vashem, but the original museum. That brought home to me what life was like for the Jewish people in Germany and beyond who suffered the systematic attempt to wipe them out. It also brought home to me that we must educate young people across this country on the need to remember what happened, because it is very hard to contemplate that systematic attempt to wipe people out, and very easy to think that it was about just a small number of mad people. But it was not: large numbers of people were involved. We must remember that it is not good enough to pinpoint just the evil people who did this; we should also pinpoint those who stood by while recognising what was going on.
I remember my visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau; it is seared into my consciousness. Going there and seeing at first hand what happened brought home to me the importance of the testimony of those who survived the death camps in proving what had happened. I was privileged to welcome to this House—together with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who is unfortunately unable to be with us today—Kitty Hart-Moxon, who, aged 16, was forced to go to Auschwitz-Birkenau at the point of a gun. She survived to tell the tale, and to come to this country to give her life to being a nurse, to build a family, and to build a life. When, on her arrival, she went to live with the Jewish community in Birmingham, they wanted to ignore the fact of the holocaust—to forget about it. It was a terrible thing, but they wanted to turn a blind eye to what happened. It is important to recognise that in this country way back then, there was almost an attempt, not to belittle the holocaust, but to try to forget about it. In 1978—a long, long time ago, before Holocaust Memorial Day was ever thought of—she went back to Auschwitz-Birkenau to do a documentary, “Return to Auschwitz”, and she wrote a brilliant book. That is almost the forerunner of what we now see in the Holocaust Educational Trust. She is a very brave lady who is very outspoken, quite rightly so, on the work she has done and what we have to do to combat such attempts.
There are three major feature films on this subject: “Schindler’s List”, “Sophie’s Choice”, and now, “Denial”. The first two will be well known to right hon. and hon. Members across the House. “Denial” will be on general release next Friday—Holocaust Memorial Day. It is about the trial of David Irving. Having brought the case himself, he was eventually put on trial, where he was proven to be a holocaust denier and shown to be the fool that he was. I think that that is symptomatic. It is a brilliant film, and I recommend that colleagues across the House see it.
I pay tribute to an honourable lady in my constituency, Gena Turgel. She was born in Krakow in 1923, the youngest of nine children. When the Nazis bombed her home city on 1 September 1939 at the outbreak of the second world war, her family planned to move to the United States, but unfortunately they tried to do so too late. The family moved to just outside Krakow, and in 1941 she had to move into the ghetto. She entered the ghetto carrying a sack of potatoes, some flour and a few other belongings, and she stayed there with her mother and four siblings. One of her brothers was shot by the SS in the ghetto, and a second brother fled from the ghetto and was never seen again.
Gena and her surviving family were eventually sent to Plaszów labour camp on the edge of Krakow. She later discovered that her sister Miriam and her husband, who had married in the ghetto, had been shot after the Nazis caught her trying to bring food into the camp. In the winter of 1944-45 the camp was liquidated, and Gena and her family had to walk to Auschwitz-Birkenau as part of a forced death march.
In January 1945, Gena and her mother were sent on a death march from Auschwitz, leaving behind Hela, Gena’s sister. They never saw her again. After several days, they came to Leslau—that was the German name for the place—where they were forced on to trucks. They travelled under terrible conditions for three to four weeks, eventually arriving in Buchenwald concentration camp. Then they were sent on cattle trucks to Bergen-Belsen, where they arrived in February 1945. Gena worked in a hospital for the next two months and tried to support her mother as best she could.
On 15 April that year, the British Army liberated Bergen-Belsen. Among the liberators was Norman Turgel, who became Gena’s husband just half a year later. Today Gena lives in Stanmore and is in close touch with her children and grandchildren. She wrote a book recently called “I Light a Candle”. At the age of 93, she goes to schools up and down the country to inform people about what happened.
I commend the early-day motion that was tabled in my name, on a cross-party basis, commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day. It has been signed so far by 44 hon. Members, but I hope that many more will do so later. The book of commitment from the Holocaust Educational Trust is available for Members to sign—it has been available this week and it will be available next week—in the Members’ corridor. I encourage Members from right across the House to sign the book of commitment, to demonstrate that we commemorate those victims and make sure that we all know that life will go on.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his speech and for calling on all hon. Members to sign the book of remembrance over the next few days.
I declare an interest as a member of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, along with the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles). It is the first commission that I have ever served on with the right hon. Gentleman, and it may be the first time that we have ever agreed on anything. It is an honour to serve with him in that task. When I was First Minister of Scotland, I was responsible for the “Lessons from Auschwitz” project, working in conjunction with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust.
The right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar talked about man’s inhumanity to man. That is a quote from Robert Burns; the full quote is
“Man’s inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!”
It is highly appropriate, because Burns night is on 25 January, two days before Holocaust Memorial Day.
The debate has been moving, as hon. Members have recounted their personal insights and, in some cases, recollections. It has also reflected the fact that although the holocaust was the greatest crime of the 20th century and perhaps the greatest crime in human history—the greatest example of man’s inhumanity to man—anti-Semitism was not restricted to the 20th century, and certainly not to Islam, but was the norm in medieval and early modern Europe, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) reminded us.
Some years ago, I was privileged as First Minister to write the foreword to a book called “Scotland’s Jews”. I claim no special virtue for the Scottish nation, but I was able to recount that Scotland was one of only two nations in the whole continent that have never had any anti-Semitic legislation on the statute book. Scotland’s declaration of independence of 1320 contains an appeal to Pope John XXII to respect the rights of Jews, Greeks and gentiles, all of whom, the declaration says, are equal in the eyes of God. It stands alone among medieval documents in making that call. We should remember that anti-Semitism and its consequences have been with us for the greater part of recorded human history.
I want to say a word about the work of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation and the Auschwitz project because it gets to the heart of what many Members have said. The Auschwitz project takes Scottish schoolchildren to Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is a similar project in England. Since its inauguration in 2013, 358 post-16 establishments have taken part in the project—more than two thirds of all local authority, independent and special schools and colleges in Scotland. I was privileged as First Minister to hear the personal testimony of the pupils who had been to concentration camps. Without question, not one of those pupils will forget that experience or have any truck with a holocaust denier.
Some hon. Members even yesterday expressed some doubt about building a memorial in Victoria Gardens, but—trust and believe me—it is a highly appropriate place for it. Regardless of where it is built, it should be emphasised that one aspect of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s work is the learning centre that goes with the memorial, as was shown in the past few days in the special edition of the “Antiques Roadshow”, which took place in the Palace of Westminster. It included many moving stories, including one about Jane Haining from near Dumfries that was told by her nieces. Jane was arrested by the Nazis for protecting Jewish girls at the Scottish mission school in Budapest, which was run by the Church of Scotland. She was murdered in Auschwitz in 1944. That testimony to powerful action showed that not everyone stood aside as the atrocities were happening, as the films that have been mentioned exemplify. Many people rallied to their fellow human beings.
The educational project and the learning that goes with it are vital because, sadly, few survivors of the holocaust are still with us and their number gets fewer by the day. The teaching and personal experience that can be imbued through family connections, the learning centre and visits to the concentration camps are therefore all the more vital.
There will be no dissenting voices from the Benches today, but I want to argue one fundamentally important point. Recognising and commemorating the significance of the holocaust, of man’s inhumanity to man, is not restricted to any religious grouping or any point of view. It should be commemorated by those who take a pro-Palestinian, a pro-Israeli or just a pro-peace view of the middle east. Last year, as a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day outside the Strasbourg Assembly. I was led to make a point of order because the Israeli diplomat representing the Israeli Government at that commemoration launched an attack on President Rouhani of Iran who was visiting France at the time. It was inappropriate in that context and it was particularly inappropriate because President Rouhani is one of the Iranian leadership who is not a holocaust denier.
All of us who are a part of humanity, regardless of affiliation, point of view, political party, religion and all the rest of it, must recognise that there are those among us who would seek to deny the terrible crimes of the past for their own cynical motivations. Those who do not deny it—who acknowledge it, face up to it and recognise it, which is the first step in preventing it from happening again—should be embraced by us, whatever their point of view, as fellow human beings.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for securing the debate. It is very relevant at this time of year, but it is also very relevant to me and many of my constituents. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is correct to say that there are fewer and fewer survivors, but a significant number of them live in my constituency: people who lived through the holocaust, people whose families perished in the holocaust and people who escaped the holocaust because their relatives came here. One former constituent, Rev. Leslie Hardman, was a witness to what happened. He entered Bergen-Belsen with the British Army. During the day he was engaged in the circumcision of babies, and later in the day he was engaged with burial and cremation.
It is appropriate that the theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “How can life go on?” I want to take this opportunity to highlight the work of the Holocaust Survivors Centre in my Hendon constituency, which I have visited on many occasions. I know several survivors who visit regularly to eat together, give each other support and receive pastoral care in the later years of their life. As I know from the many people who visit, it is a much-cherished organisation that serves the community.
I would like to mention one person in particular. Renee Salt lives above the survivors centre and speaks to schools on behalf of the Holocaust Education Trust. Renee was born in Zdunska Wola, in Poland, in 1929. She lived with her parents and her younger sister. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the Nazis marched into her town and decided to take over her flat because they liked it so much. Renee and her family were simply thrown out into the street with no possessions. She went to live with various relatives who were able to look after her. By the end of 1939, as the war continued, however, the Nazis established a ghetto in the town where all the Jewish inhabitants had to live. Seven people lived in one room, which must have been a terrible existence. In 1942, the Nazis announced that everyone in the ghetto would be moved. Believing that they would soon return to their one room, the family hid Renee’s grandparents and four-year-old cousin in the attic. That was the last time they ever saw them.
The people who had been assembled were told to hand over all the children under the age of 18. Renee’s mum had decided to hide Renee and her sister under her coat, but her sister was found and taken. Renee was fortunate enough not to be noticed, so she went with her parents to the Lodz ghetto. In 1944, the Nazis said that the ghetto was to be liquidated and that they should all go the train station to another camp. Renee and her parents volunteered to go, and were taken by train to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where they managed to survive a selection.
Renee and her mother were then transported to a warehouse in Hamburg. In 1945, they were moved again, this time to Bergen-Belsen—a repeat of the nightmare. Renee and her mother were liberated from Bergen-Belsen on 15 April 1945 by the British Army, including by Rev. Leslie Hardman, whom I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Unfortunately, Renee’s mother died 12 days later.
Like other Members, I have visited Auschwitz on several occasions. Seeing really is believing and understanding. Watching the faces of the pupils from my constituency was not only very moving but very telling. I last visited Auschwitz on 27 January 2014, when, alongside Lord Howard, I attended the International Holocaust Memorial Day through the inter-parliamentary gathering at Auschwitz. The temperature that day fell to minus 10°—never in my life have I been that cold—and I remain incredulous that people survived those conditions. But survive they did, and many then moved to the UK, including to Hendon. On another visit to Auschwitz, I discovered the book “Night” by Elie Wiesel. In it, he speaks about his time in the camp and the problems he faced. One line, in particular, has remained with me:
“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”
That is why we continue to remember and to commemorate the holocaust.
On Monday, I visited Edgware and District reform synagogue, where I heard Mala Tribich tell over 100 pupils from a local school about her experiences of the holocaust. Mala’s name has been mentioned already for the work she does for the Holocaust Educational Trust, and I pay tribute to the trust and to Karen Pollock and her team for the work they do—it was an inspiring move in 2012 to take the England football team to Auschwitz to show them what occurred there. We also heard first-hand testimony from Mala’s brother, Ben Helfgott, about his experience. It not only highlighted the issue but brought the holocaust to the attention of a new generation.
Some of my staff have asked me about my experiences and visits to Auschwitz, and I am pleased to say that when it gets warmer, in the spring, I will be taking my parliamentary office staff to Auschwitz. I think I can give them a good experience, given the number of times I have visited and the number of books I have read.
I want to finish on a positive note, by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) for the work he has done. He has been a tireless campaigner on this issue and a real friend to the Jewish community. On behalf of my constituents, I truly thank him.
Finally, I want to thank every Member here today. I have many Jewish constituents, as I have said, so one would expect me to be here—I understand that—but I am particularly grateful to each and every Member here today who does not have Jewish constituents or those who experienced the holocaust.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
One day last November, I had the unforgettable experience of visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau with students from Ealing Independent College and the Holocaust Educational Trust. I say “one day”, but it was a long and, in some ways, difficult day. We flew out of Luton at 6 am and were back at 11 pm. For all of us—200 of us from schools across the London region—the memory of that day will remain with us forever. The icy conditions—it was minus 4°—and the emotional demands of the day set a harsh context for bearing witness to the horror of the atrocities committed in the death camps. Startlingly, if a one-minute silence had been observed for every person who perished at that camp, we would have been there for more than two years.
Seventy-plus years on from the liberation of Auschwitz, this subject still has enormous contemporary relevance. It has been pointed out that with the passage of time there are fewer and fewer camp survivors, Kindertransport children and people who liberated the camps, so we owe a huge debt to people and organisations such as the HET and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, headed up by Olivia Marks-Woldman, whom I was at school with in Ealing. The commemorations next week up and down the country are crucial to educating successive generations. We can only understand our present and future if we understand our past.
This is a debate about the 6 million Jewish victims of the holocaust, but it extends to the millions of others the Nazis exterminated, including Romani Gypsies, communists, socialists, trade unionists and gay people. It also includes those slaughtered in other genocides. Holocaust education campaigning evolves. We have already heard mention of the “Antiques Roadshow” at the weekend featuring memorabilia and other astonishing artefacts from Auschwitz and of those on display at Yad Vashem in Israel. That brought it into the nation’s living rooms on prime time television.
This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day schools pack contains recipe cards—things such as Rwandan vegetable stew. That is another way of digesting information about cultures attacked in genocide. I think there are other recipes from Cambodia and Bosnia. Culture is transmitted subtly, and when there are no grandparents, culinary tradition and memory die.
All communities must learn lessons and be vigilant against racism, anti-Semitism, islamophobia and all forms of hatred in the contemporary world. There are worries that following the verdict in the EU referendum, and even following the events across the Atlantic that will come to fruition tomorrow, prejudice and racism are in danger of becoming acceptable, and that holders of those abhorrent views may feel disinhibited from expressing them.
Holocaust Memorial Day has renewed significance this year. We live in a time of post-truth politics and fake news. Members have mentioned the film “Denial”, which I had an opportunity to see earlier this week. It deals with the trial in which the Nazi David Irving opposed the American academic Deborah Lipstadt. I warmly recommend the film, which is a fact-packed treatment of the downfall of the UK’s most notorious rewriter of history. It is frightening to hear that he is making something of a resurgence. I think that such views are as ridiculous as those of people who think that the earth is flat, and we need to call them out.
At the end of last year, I attended my first-ever Rabbi’s Tisch, which is a Friday night meal. It was a great event, which was held at Ealing Liberal Synagogue. The presence of a Community Security Trust guard on the door served as a reminder that, while all communities deserve to worship in safety, that is not always possible.
It is deplorable that pigs’ heads are left on the doorsteps of mosques in the UK, and that we hear of the desecration of Jewish graveyards in Europe. Just over the border of my constituency, the Hammersmith Polish centre was attacked in the wake of the Brexit result. It seems that there has been a resurgence of hate-filled political rhetoric—ditto the scapegoating and vilification of migrants and refugees.
Last year the Kindertransport refugee Ernest Simon addressed us at Ealing town hall. He told us about the train trip from Austria into the unknown that he had made as a child in 1939. The first question posed to him in the Q and A session was “Should we take in Syrian refugees?” His answer was an emphatic “Of course”: we had a moral duty to do so. All debates such as this resonate with contemporary events.
There is a large Polish community in my constituency, and this week, along with members of the all-party parliamentary group on Poland, I met here a cross-party delegation of visiting Members of the Polish Parliament. They, too, voiced concern about the rising tide of hate crime, and we reassured them that strong ties bind our two nations. They also asked me whether I had been to Poland. I did not have a straightforward answer to that question. Yes, I had flown to Krakow, but what we saw there was something that all of us will remember forever: something utterly unforgettable and outside the accepted norms of what takes place in everyday Poland, the like of which we must make sure that we never witness again anywhere.
The diversity of my constituency is one of the reasons why it is the best in the whole world, along with the strength of our many communities. I have constituents of all faiths and of none, and the constituency contains numerous churches, a mosque in Acton and another in Ealing, and a liberal as well as a reform synagogue. I am proud to say that next Friday we will have our annual remembrance event to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. It has become an annual date in the calendar—as has this debate, a parliamentary fixture that is much looked forward to.
At that event in Ealing and throughout the country, we should mark this shameful episode in history, and also subsequent genocides. We must assess our own responsibilities in the wake of such crimes. We must never forget the holocaust, and we must ensure that such events never occur again.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is always a great privilege to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Let me add my thanks to the truly amazing Holocaust Educational Trust for its much-needed and excellent work to keep memories alive, but also to remind us of what our future might hold if we chose to ignore the plight of those in our world who are in trouble.
This year, the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is a question: “How can life go on?” Given what we have heard today, and during our past debates on this topic, the force of that question is palpable. Personally, I cannot imagine how I could go on in circumstances even a fraction as bleak as those experienced by so many Jewish people, and others, during the Nazi genocide. For many survivors, almost everything that had anchored them was lost. The loving family connections that had given shape to their entire lives, the familiar places and supportive communities that may have been all they ever knew, their sense of our world as a potential home for them—all of it gone. On top of that, those sources of love and security had been taken away by an unprecedented, unrelenting wave of organised, arbitrary hatred.
In reflecting on this, I will draw on the testimony of one survivor, the artist Alicia Melamed Adams, who was born Alicia Goldschlag in Drohobycz in what is now Ukraine in 1927. We can read her story, in connection with a series of relevant—and beautiful and tragic—examples of her painting, in a booklet. It is a remarkable testament to a truly remarkable and very talented woman.
The German army took control of Drohobycz in 1941, when Alicia was only 13 years old. They forced the Jewish population into a ghetto, and Alicia’s family was separated. Her beloved older brother disappeared without trace at the age of 18 after being taken to another camp; he was one of the first to be taken in that area. During this time, she—at 13 years old—laboured for the Gestapo under the constant and explicit threat of beatings and death. In her words:
“At one time I worked as a cleaner for a Gestapo man. He was one of those who shot people in Bronica wood with machine guns—about two thousand at a time. He always used to drink beforehand. Once he said to me, ‘You are very nice, I will never kill you with the others.’ Then he showed me a beautiful flowering tree and said, ‘I will kill you separately and I will put you under that tree.’ I once painted a self-portrait with that tree. I sold the picture and called it ‘Childhood Memories’, but I’m certain the buyer didn’t know what kind of memories they were.”
Alicia narrowly escaped death a number of times, mainly because she was helped due to the kindness of others or sometimes just by luck—fate. Throughout her ordeal, Alicia was only a child.
After the war Alicia met Adam, also a survivor in western Poland, who is now her husband. I wanted to tell his story too, but we simply do not have time in this debate. I urge the House authorities to give us a proper, long debate next time so that we can truly talk about the stories of such people. Alicia and Adam moved to London, where they have lived ever since, but these events leave an indelible mark.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has painted a moving picture. Does she agree that we sometimes think these kinds of events stopped at the end of the war, but there were dreadful pogroms after the war as well, and that should not be forgotten?
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I plead for more time in these debates so we can draw out these stories and understand the lessons for us today.
Such events leave an indelible mark. After experiencing such intense horror, it is understandably difficult to go on with life in a new place among strangers. Stories like those of Adam and Alicia are relevant to how we should treat today’s refugee survivors—those for whom the question of how life can go on must be so pressing. It is so important that we create an environment for them that offers genuine shelter for body and mind, that genuinely reaches out, instead of shying away, when faced with deeply troubling past experiences and their consequences, and that gives survivors a genuine chance to create a new life in this country, just as Alicia and Adam, remarkably, have had the strength to do. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that Adam and Alicia are still with us today, and nestled in the bosom of their loving family.
I hope today the House will recommit to extending a welcoming, understanding, careful hand to refugees today and tomorrow. We must never let survivors of murderous horror feel such loss and despair that they might question how they can go on with life in our country.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I start by thanking those who keep the memory of the holocaust alive. There will soon be no living memory of the event, but it will have been passed on to future generations. I particularly thank the Holocaust Educational Trust. Like many Members here, I have visited Auschwitz and Birkenau and what struck me most was the industrial scale and the degree of planning to make the camps as efficient as possible. I also thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and Eve Gill, a holocaust survivor whom I have heard speak a couple of times. She speaks at many schools in my area and Surrey more widely. I heard about her ambitions and aspirations as a teenager and then about how they were blown apart by the holocaust and that had a real impact on me and on the pupils who listened to her.
We live in a troubled world, and extremism and nationalism are on the march. With ISIS, Le Pen, Geert Wilders, the AfD and Putin, this is an easier environment in which to whip up hatred of people of different faiths—Jews, Ahmadi Muslims or Christians—races or sexualities, such as the gays in Russia. We should not think that the UK is immune from that—other Members quoted a rise in hate crime of 40% over the past three years. It is therefore essential to recall the holocaust each year. We do that not only out of respect for its victims and those of subsequent genocides, but to debunk holocaust deniers, to which the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) referred in his remarks. Such people have had an easy outlet for their bile since the explosion in social media. We also do it to increase the chances that we detect future genocides before they occur. That is our greatest challenge, because we have seen genocides since the holocaust in Bosnia, Rwanda and other countries.
I will finish by mentioning South Sudan. There is evidence from the chair of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan that a genocide is under way and that a steady process of ethnic cleansing is ongoing in several areas, with killing, abduction, rape, looting and the burning of homes. Millions of people have been displaced by civil war, different groups are being dehumanised, and a large humanitarian crisis is ongoing due to a lack of food. While it is essential that we recall the holocaust and that significant events take place, we must also learn the lessons and seek to apply them when we identify genocides that are potentially under way, such as in South Sudan. In addition to officially recognising the holocaust, I hope that the Government will take action on the situation in South Sudan.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for enabling this extremely important debate to happen in the House and across the country. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism.
Holocaust Memorial Day is vital. We must learn from the past and educate for the future. There can be no excuses for anti-Semitism or any other form of racism or prejudice. I congratulate the Holocaust Educational Trust and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for their invaluable work supporting holocaust education, remembrance and research, which is recognised both nationally and internationally. The Home Affairs Committee recently produced a comprehensive report on anti-Semitism in the UK, and I urge the Minister and all parties to take appropriate cognisance of it.
Genocide does not happen out of the blue. There is a gradual process of victimisation, discrimination, hatred, words, actions, maligning, inferences and looking the other way. That leads to psychological distancing, and then to dehumanisation. That is the path to genocide.
I will never forget reading the diary of Anne Frank when I was at school and later visiting the site of her home in Amsterdam, where she and her family hid for two years before being discovered and arrested in 1944. I recall reading of her childhood pain that she could not go outside, of the lack of food and of her abject fear for herself and for her family, and then visiting and seeing those cramped conditions and wondering how my own family could have coped if placed in such danger and despair. Children could not make a sound and could not go to the bathroom until evening, and they lost their formal education and friends. It was impossible to go outside for fear of being shot. Such a burden on their young brains.
Education and remembrance are so important because, out of tragedy and suffering, Anne Frank, a 14-year-old girl, wrote some of the most inspiring words that I have ever read. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “How can life go on?” Anne Frank wrote that she kept to her ideals
“because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.”
She wrote:
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.”
And:
“Whoever is happy will make others happy too.”
Holocaust Memorial Day commemorates, and it is important to pay tribute to all survivors and to never forget those who were lost and those who experienced such traumatic circumstances. Anne Frank wrote:
“What is done cannot be undone, but one can prevent it happening again.”
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who is not in his seat, for the tone he set at the beginning of this afternoon’s debate with such great sensitivity and, indeed, insight.
This year marks the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps set up by the Nazis to prosecute the holocaust. The tragedy of the holocaust affected so many, directly and indirectly. From the millions of victims, their families and communities to the forces who liberated them in 1944 and 1945, the ripple effect of this tragedy casts its shadow far and wide. The physical and emotional trauma was shared by victims and those who witnessed it. Even today, the scars have not healed.
The holocaust raises deep and profound questions for all of us today, which is why the theme of this year’s commemoration, mentioned by so many Members, “How can life go on?” is so important today and every day. In the face of such fundamental evil, it is human to feel a sense of hopelessness, but the theme challenges that. Even in the face of unspeakable evil, we are not hopeless.
The commemoration, and today’s important debate, give us all an opportunity to reflect, and it helps us to find ways of coming to terms with the unthinkable. If we are to live beyond the tragedy of the holocaust and not just survive, we must resolve today to ensure that reconciliation and rebuilding take place wherever in the world they are needed. We must continue to learn from these experiences and remember them, taking care that our response to contemporary genocide in Srebrenica, Rwanda and Cambodia is guided by the need to ensure that those who make it through the darkness can eventually emerge into the light.
Most of all, if we are to guarantee that life goes on, we should try not to counteract hate with more hate of our own. This week I listened to the words of that great American civil rights campaigner John Lewis, who spoke so movingly on how we must instead meet hate with love:
“The way of love is the better way.”
He went on to invoke Dr Martin Luther King Jr., who said:
“Hate is too great a burden to bear.”
Holocaust Memorial Day takes place at a time when we should seek to learn the lessons of the past. We must understand that genocide is often the evil culmination of a gradual process that begins with unchecked discrimination, racism and hatred. In the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory in November and the Brexit vote in June, we have witnessed deeply worrying increases in intolerance across western democracies. We must be vigilant and continue to provide positive leadership if we are to effectively address the root causes of hate in our communities and beyond.
The Scottish National party Government in Scotland have long supported remembrance and the importance of holocaust education, and the Scottish Parliament will also play its part in remembrance. Next Tuesday, Jessica Reid and Callum Docherty, two students from Braes High School in Falkirk, will deliver the Scottish Parliament’s “Time for Reflection”. These school students recently took part in the Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” project, which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and which gives two post-16 students from every school and college in Scotland the opportunity to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. This project is supported by a grant from the Scottish Government. They also set up the Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion in 2015 to engage with minority ethnic stakeholders and communities in considering what more can be done to tackle these issues. This group gave a report in September 2016, setting out practical suggestions on how to advance this crucially important agenda.
The holocaust did not begin with the murder of millions; it began with what we now know as hate speech, perpetuated by a small minority and tolerated by the vast majority. We cannot make the same mistakes again. But as John Lewis so eloquently stated this week, we must face this reaction with tolerance, respect and understanding. We can and should be very proud of the diversity of modern Scotland, and the diversity we see across the British Isles, but we should never take that diversity or tolerance for granted. We want our Jewish community to feel safe and welcome, and so we condemn the growing anti-Semitism and the hate seen more recently across Europe and the USA. As we commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, it is only through employing this kind of positive approach that we can ensure that life will go on, and that decent humanity continues to prosper in the face of unspeakable, unspeakable evil.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is good to make a contribution. First, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for setting the scene so well. He had limited time but he did very well, so well done to him. We have heard some powerful speeches from right hon. and hon. Members encapsulating the energy, passion, thoughts, fears and concerns of us all. They have been put very well, in a dignified manner.
I take great pride in the opportunity to speak on this unfortunate and catastrophic event in history. We all know the facts, yet they bear repeating, as others have done through individual stories from their constituents and so on. If we were to read out all the names of those who were so brutally murdered, it would take more than 384 days, reading constantly, day and night, to get through the list—it would take more than a year. That shows the magnitude of the horror that took place. These facts bear repeating to ensure that there is never a repetition of events similar to this. I used to question why I had to learn so many Bible verses in Sunday school—perhaps others did the same—but I was told to learn this one:
“I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you”.
We are dealing with the same idea here: we will keep remembering to learn the lessons.
Unfortunately, in some parts of the world those lessons have not been learned, so we need to keep repeating them and hope that their importance sinks in. There is a responsibility on every elected Member in this Chamber to learn the lesson well and ensure that we do not stand like former Members in this House, wringing our hands yet saying nothing. Today has been a day when we have said much, and it has all been very well put over. I am known for getting up and speaking out on behalf of those who are being abused and persecuted—that is my job and it is the job of other Members in this House, too—and I make no apologies for that. I work hard for my constituents to provide a quality of life and support when needed. I also work on behalf of those who cannot ask me to help although the facts of their lives demand that I do what I can to help. It is a responsibility that we all have in this House and that we all must take very seriously. We all have a responsibility in preventing genocide and mass killings throughout different parts of the world, including our own country.
An important lesson we have to learn from the holocaust relates to the continuation of an ideology of hatred within different communities. I am very passionate about tackling the ongoing genocide faced by Christians in the middle east. I am chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief—that is about the religious belief of Christians and those of other faiths, and those with no faith. The genocide in the middle east contributes to the mistreatment of vulnerable minorities. Evidence of that includes mass murder, forced deportations, the destruction of Christian institutions such as churches and monasteries, and forced conversions to different religions.
My interest in this matter extends to the Kindertransport children. We all know the story of the children who were smuggled out of Germany, some of whom ended up at what is now McGill’s farm outside Millisle in my constituency. That gave them a chance, which is very important.
The history of this period of time astounds me. Following the outbreak of world war two, there was a drastic change in attitudes towards the Jews. After plans for their mass relocation to the island of Madagascar were disrupted, the Jews were forced into blocked-off sections of towns called ghettos, and used for slave labour, which often resulted in death because they were deprived of food and water and overworked. Right hon. and hon. Members have told personal stories about those very things.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are immensely lucky that there are brave individuals—including my constituent, Mala Tribich—who survived the horrific experiences he is talking about and are prepared to speak out about the horror they experienced? If we hear at first hand what happened, we can learn the lessons so that we can all work to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Lady succinctly makes a point that everyone who has spoken today believes. We have to remember those people and what they have been through.
The escalation of violence did not stop until the end of the war in 1945. As the Nazis established themselves in power, they built on the idea of an Aryan race that planned to eliminate any individual who was classified as genetically inferior. Such people were alienated from society, with all their social, civil and political rights removed. Nowadays, that seems highly discriminatory, as we live in a different generation and a different time with regard to race. The Nazis intensified their scheme from forced labour to unjustified murder, while the destruction of war covered up the fact that thousands of individuals were losing their lives because of the strong leadership in Nazi Germany at that time. It sounds so far-fetched that it could only be a film—if only that was the case. Members have referred to some of the films that correctly recreated the events that took place at that time.
All that happened during my mother’s lifetime; it should not happen again in the lifetime of my grandchildren. I often consider what I would have done had I been a German citizen and seen my Jewish neighbours shipped off. Would I have stood up? We like to think that we would. Had the opportunity been there, I certainly hope that we would. Martin Niemöller wrote a very good poem that most Members present probably know. It is very clear:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
That is very good poem that illustrates the issue very clearly.
When we discussed this debate in my office, a secretary said that she had been to Auschwitz and that everyone should go. Other Members have said in clear terms that they have been there and been changed. I believe that we must be changed. We should face this harrowing lesson and determine that in our personal lives and in this place we do all we can to prevent anything that even resembles what happened in the holocaust from taking place again. I was not able to stand with my Jewish brethren at that time, but I stand with them now as we solemnly vow never to forget the holocaust and to make sure that it never happens again.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is an honour to follow that excellent speech by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is a real honour to be a co-sponsor of this debate and to be able to sum up for my party on such an important issue.
I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust for the help, briefings and advice it has given to all Members, and for the excellent work that it does all year. I commend everyone who has made such excellent and thought-provoking contributions to the debate. I was particularly struck by the comments by the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) about the importance of language, which were particularly well made. Like him, I think it is hugely important that we do not ever normalise the language of hate but always challenge it loudly. We must also challenge those who would shamefully deny something so eloquently spoken about by the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) spoke about man’s inhumanity to man and the importance of learning the lessons from the distant past. I know that many people in my local area will be focused on what is said here today. I hope that the same is true for people around the UK and beyond, because it is vital. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) that now more than at many other times in our life, we must be steadfast in our desire to make sure that everyone understands exactly what happened and that the lessons of this terrible stain on history are learned and understood as widely as possible. There is no place for anti-Semitism here or anywhere else. Where it exists, it is our responsibility to challenge it vigorously and to challenge discrimination in all its forms.
The holocaust saw more Jewish men, women and children perish in ghettos, mass-shootings and extermination camps than the entire population of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Hove said, it was an almost unbelievable scale of deliberate terror against ordinary people simply because of their identity as Jews. As time passes and memories fade, we must not lose our focus on this or on making sure that it cannot happen again. The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) was entirely right in stressing the importance of testimony and education. There is no doubt about the impact on hon. Members who have visited the camps.
I am very fortunate to represent the majority of Scotland’s Jewish community. I live in a vibrant diverse place, where people from all religions, backgrounds and cultures live together harmoniously. That ability to live together and to appreciate the richness of our diversity and what it brings to society is hugely important. It was important, too, to the late Rev. Ernest Levy, who was Cantor of Giffnock and Newlands synagogue in my constituency. Rev. Levy, who died in 2009, survived seven Nazi concentration camps, having been taken from his home in Budapest to Auschwitz at the age of 19. Although it was understandably very hard for him to speak about his terrible experiences, he did just that, making it his mission to speak to young people in particular to make sure that they understood the terrors that people had faced, and the extraordinary level of cruelty inflicted on the Jewish community and others who incurred the wrath of the Nazis.
The things that Rev. Levy experienced are beyond our comprehension in many ways. He called them dehumanising and horrifying. He described how his family were forced to flee their home in Bratislava in 1938, after being persecuted by fascists. When we all go home tonight, feeling secure in our place in the world, let us reflect on that, because the Levy family was no different from the rest of us. They just found themselves in the eye of a hellish storm, simply because they were Jewish. That storm followed them, and he and his family were captured. He was sent to Auschwitz, which he described as a world of evilness beyond description. He experienced his brothers being compelled to dig their own graves, and he described the terrible stench that tore at his lungs.
We can probably never fully understand what happened, but we absolutely must try. I can easily empathise with how Rev. Levy must have felt when he tried to return to normality after he was released, by then from Belsen. He was very grateful to be alive, but, at the same time, he was beset by a loss of trust in people, in God, and in prayers. Who would be any different? It is testimony to his great strength of character that he did find that trust again, and that he dedicated his life to helping others. His belief in the light of humanity is a lesson to us all in the strength of the human spirit, and in the need to stand up and never let racism gain credence in society.
That is the sentiment that led me to make a trip this year that will stay with me for the rest of my life. I was very fortunate to be part of my party’s first official delegation to Israel and Palestine. The first place we visited was Yad Vashem, the memorial to those who died in the holocaust, which is a quite remarkable place. The impact that it had on me was immense, and it must be the same for anyone who visits. The stories of all those people were laid out so plainly. They were just ordinary people—like you and me, the man down the road, or the woman in the office. All of them were murdered so cruelly because they were different. The way that the Nazis targeted people and created hostility to those groups who did not fit into their idea of society was particularly frightening, because I could see only too well why we need always to be ready to stand up against those who foster hate.
Yad Vashem was a peaceful and thought-provoking place, for all the awful story it tells. It is a place that honours the dead and makes sure that we remember each one of them, individually, as a human being—a person to be valued and acknowledged. That focus on each person as a human—one of us—cannot be emphasised enough. In everything I saw, I was struck by its very personal nature. There were individual possessions—some red shoes, a comb, and a pair of broken glasses, painstakingly laid out in a display case. They had belonged to someone’s mum and they were all that was left when the Nazis murdered her. These glasses had been cherished for decades by a daughter who had hidden them during her time in a concentration camp, after her mother had been taken away. She had simply nothing else to remember her by, and she felt her mum was closer to her through these cherished old glasses.
In the garden of remembrance there commemorating the righteous among nations—those people from around the world who stood fast against the Nazis and protected their Jewish friends and neighbours, paying with their lives—I saw the memorial to Jane Haining, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) mentioned, the only Scottish victim of the concentration camps. Jane’s selfless devotion to the children she looked after as a matron saw her sent to Auschwitz, where she died. The Church of Scotland, her employer, had repeatedly ordered her home, but she refused to leave the children and was sent to her death.
The heritage centre to be opened in her hometown of Dunscore will be a particularly important place where people can learn what she stood for as a beacon of hope against hate, which is so important now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) described. We could all do with thinking about Jane Haining and how she was not prepared to leave behind those who would be persecuted simply for being different.
That is a theme that the young people in my constituency demonstrate brilliantly at their holocaust memorial events every year. Their parents must be extremely proud of their children showing such maturity and insight and sharing the lessons we must all learn from the holocaust. These children, from my fantastically diverse community, represent the best of us. They are children from all religions and none, some with disabilities and some without, from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, girls and boys. Just like the children who were sent to their deaths.
Our children often show us the way forward, and a number of Members have described that movingly today. That is why we cannot take it for granted that this cannot happen again. We must all commit to speaking out whenever we see anti-Semitism, racism or hate, and when we hear things we know are not right. We must never be afraid to call these things out for what they are, loudly and clearly. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) described all too clearly what can happen if we stand back and do not act.
I close with the words and sentiments of Jane Haining, who stood so fast against hatred and paid so dearly for her principles and compassion. She said:
“If these children need me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me in days of darkness?”
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The tales this afternoon have been extremely moving and that strengthens why these lessons should never be forgotten. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is, “How can life go on?” It is intended to promote consideration of the aftermath of the holocaust and subsequent genocides. As has been eloquently observed many times in this place and elsewhere, the industrial mass murder of millions did not begin with state-sponsored violence and the intimidation of Jews in Germany. It did not begin with the construction of camps. It began with the view that someone’s racial background marked them out as inferior. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said in this debate last year,
“we should never avert our eyes from the most uncomfortable truth of all—that its perpetrators were not unique. They were ordinary men and women carrying out acts of extraordinary evil”—[Official Report, 21 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1635.]
while others stood by.
Society can only progress when such a fact is recognised and the memory of those awful times must be shared with future generations. We must teach our future generations that they must stand up to hate, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and any other injustice. As the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) eloquently put it, we have a solemn duty to remember the victims and to educate young people about the horrors unleashed on continental Europe through hate less than a century ago.
Through the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, children from schools and sixth forms across the country have the opportunity to visit the former concentration camp of Auschwitz. Since 1999, more than 30,000 children have been able to benefit from the trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme and become ambassadors for the trust, communicating their experiences to friends and peers. Students from my constituency of Blackburn, in particular from St Bede’s school, have benefited from the opportunity and were very keen to share their experience with other young people in Blackburn.
This month, we will see the exhibition of the 10 finalist concept designs for the national memorial of the holocaust to be constructed in London. We must not allow the generational memory of the holocaust to fade and the establishment of permanent physical memories has a huge role to play in that.
Many people have had the opportunity to listen to the incredible stories of holocaust survivors and those who worked against the Nazis. As the years pass and the number of living holocaust survivors decreases due to the passage of time, sadly there will be fewer and fewer opportunities to hear their incredible stories, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) already stated. However, thanks to the bravery of individuals during the war and its aftermath—including the young lady who preserved her mother’s glasses, whom the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) spoke about—letters, diaries, documentation and personal belongings are all publicly available. Recordings of survivors remain with us. Museums dedicated to the preservation of their experiences will continue to communicate our shared history with the public. Historians will continue to inspire discourse. We will never forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said.
In some circles, there is a view that young people will become less interested in the subject if it becomes simply history, but that does a tremendous disservice to the empathy of the next generation. As we think about how life can go on after the holocaust and subsequent genocides, the role of the next generation is even more crucial. Through establishing permanent memorials and the continued presence of the holocaust in schools through the national curriculum, and the support of devolved Governments, young people must be given every opportunity to engage with the difficult subject of the holocaust and other atrocities that have happened. Dedicated and conscientious teachers of history can convey the gravity of the holocaust and young people can draw parallels between historical events.
The concerning rise, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), in anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2016—an 11% increase on the same period last year—shows that we have more work to do in combating anti-Semitism. We must fight attitudes that cast any group as somehow less than any other and that define any group as unable to be British. Vibrant, accepting communities are possible. We must work to make that the legacy of the holocaust—that the ultimate result of genocide is the rejection of the hatred at its heart—and work to bring groups of young people together to facilitate social contact, to break down social and economic barriers and to emphasise the common threads that run through all young people: a hope for a better life, the desire to learn and the need for opportunities.
How does life carry on? It does so by ensuring that the missing generations—those abrupt endings on family trees—are commemorated and celebrated; by ensuring that communities targeted by fascists are able to live and work freely in Britain and around the world; and by instilling in young people a sense of pride in our country that does not exclude any community.
Nothing can fill the void of family members who were killed, but we can work for a better Britain and a better world where no group is stigmatised or discriminated against, and where prejudice is wholeheartedly rejected. We can be proud of the UK’s role in establishing Holocaust Memorial Day, when we joined 45 other Governments in signing the Stockholm declaration. This year’s theme—“How can life go on?”—underlines the importance of the events arranged by faith groups, schools and community organisations that take place in the days and weeks leading up to the day.
For 20 years, I was honoured to stand on the steps of Blackburn town hall, paying respect and remembering the atrocities of the holocaust with Jews, Christians, Muslims, people of no religion whatever and people of many other religions. It is important that every area in the country recognises what our parents went through in the war and what the Jews went through at the hands of the Nazis. We must never ever forget and it is important that we keep those memories alive. The Holocaust Educational Trust will do just that, raising awareness in the community and the educational profession about the holocaust and lessons that can be drawn from it. It already does exceptional work in training teachers and equipping students to understand the attitudes that led to the unique crime of the holocaust.
The Government’s ongoing funding of educational programmes is essential. Since 2008, the Government have funded the Centre for Holocaust Education at University College London’s Institute for Education, which had benefited more than 7,000 teachers as of March last year. The ongoing funding of the “Lessons from Auschwitz” project benefits so many students and, it appears, hon. Members. Through those students we must confront head-on holocaust denial, distortion and equivocation; the denial of the historical reality; the deliberate effort to minimise the effect and impact of the holocaust; and the drawing of false equivalence between the unique crime of the holocaust and current events.
The establishment of Holocaust Memorial Day and the continuing efforts of the Holocaust Educational Trust are invaluable not only in commemorating the awful crimes and ensuring that the legacy of the holocaust is not forgotten, but in providing an example of bringing communities together and instilling values of tolerance and acceptance in young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
It is a real privilege and honour to respond to a debate from this Dispatch Box for the first time since becoming a Minister, not least because this was such a consensual debate and because I was a secondary school history teacher in Yorkshire before I was elected to this place, so I used to deliver holocaust education to young people. It is also a privilege for me because of my own journey within Judaism, which has become so important to me over the past couple of years.
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made across the House, which have been thoughtful, insightful and, in many cases, moving. I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for securing the debate.
Many of us know the Holocaust Memorial Day events in our constituencies well, and we take part in them. I pay tribute to the ones organised in my constituency; it does not have a big Jewish population—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) pointed out, that is the case in many seats—but the community wants to mark the day and to remember the horrors of the holocaust. So I pay particular tribute to Brigg Town Council for its work in organising the event in Brigg on the same basis as happens in many other constituencies.
As so many colleagues have said today, the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is, “How can life go on?” It is a powerful and thought-provoking question, and I wish I was back in the classroom so that I could pose it to the young people I used to have the privilege of teaching. We have heard many moving testimonies today from people who prove that life actually can go on. I want to reiterate their names—I have tried to make notes as we have gone on—because it is important to repeat that people came to this country after the holocaust, and their lives did go on. We have heard of Renee Salt, Kitty Hart-Moxon, Arek Hersh, Gena Turgel, Ben Helfgott, Mala Tribich, Ernest Simon, Eve Gill, Reverend Levy, and Alicia Goldschlag and her husband, Adam.
I have heard some of their testimonies myself, and I want to pay particular tribute to Zigi Shipper BEM, who survived the Lodz ghetto, Auschwitz-Birkenau, another camp near Danzig and a death march. He came to the UK in 1947. He is now married, and he has children and grandchildren. With the Holocaust Educational Trust, many Members will have seen the film produced by the trust and one of his grandchildren, which was shown in the House of Commons not so long ago. He proves what can be achieved as life goes on, and we should thank him and all the survivors who came to this country who have kept the memory of all those who perished alive in the work they do going into schools and communities to speak about the horrors that took place.
We heard a lot today about the “Antiques Roadshow”, which was aired at the weekend. I got a text from my mum saying, “You must watch this,” so I went on iPlayer. It was truly moving, as she said, and so many colleagues have made reference to that today. It was very moving to see those items—often the only connection people have to people in their families and in their lives who were so brutally murdered in the holocaust—and to see just how important they were to them.
That programme showed us what a story of survival this is. Despite the horrors of the past, and despite their unimaginable experiences, survivors have gone on to become Nobel laureates and to make a contribution in this country and internationally in the worlds of science, medicine, politics and so many others. There are also people who just came here and got on with their ordinary lives, building, out of that horror, a family and a future for themselves. They overcame terrible odds, and that is why this year’s theme is all the more poignant: it is very personal, and it can resonate with all of us.
All of us in here will have experienced the loss of a loved one and wondered how we would cope—how would life go on? Let us imagine someone’s feeling of loss when it involves generations of their family; that is unimaginable to so many of us. Great-grandparents, grandparents, children, nieces, nephews, brothers and sisters—all lost. And beyond all that very personal loss, there is the loss of their very way of life, their home and the community they grew up in—a place that has gone and that will never be again. That is so difficult for so many of us to imagine.
We can all look at the black and white photos of loved ones in albums; we look at them from time to time, and we remember. I just imagine looking at those same pictures and realising—as we saw with some of the photographs on the “Antiques Roadshow” last week—that everybody in them apart from you had perished in a death camp or in more recent conflicts, such as the killing fields of Cambodia, in Rwanda or in Srebrenica.
However, such photographs, and some of those we saw on the programme last week, also invoke strength and renewal, and they encourage new lives and new memories. That is why Holocaust Memorial Day is not only about commemorating past genocides and honouring those who died, but about standing with those who survive and about the new lives they have built. It is also, as many Members on both sides of the House have said, about standing up against intolerance and hatred, whatever form it may take. Today, for most of us, standing up against intolerance does not involve the same risks as it did for those who stood up against the Nazis or Pol Pot. Hassan Ngeze was a journalist sentenced to 35 years in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for spreading anti-Tutsi propaganda that led to the slaughter of 1 million Rwandans. We all know very well the crimes against humanity committed by Radovan Karadžic. For us, standing up against intolerance does not involve imprisonment, staring down the barrel of a gun, or thinking that somebody is going to come and round you and your family up in the night, but it does require us to speak out and to stand firm, because we all know, as many colleagues have said, that evil flourishes when good people stand idly by.
In the context of the Holocaust, we are also required to bear witness—we hear that all the time. We must not trivialise the Holocaust. We have to recognise the peculiarly unique evil of the Holocaust, and that is why we must bear witness to it. There are many ways that I personally, and colleagues here, have done that; it can take many different forms. A lot of colleagues have mentioned Yad Vashem in Jerusalem—a place I have visited a number of times. I think that anybody who has been to Yad Vashem will be very touched by how it is put together in telling the story of the development of hate and the horrors of what happened. The most powerful thing, which really touched me, was that on leaving, having seen all that horror, one goes slightly up an incline to a balcony that overlooks what must be the most peaceful scene in Jerusalem of trees and quiet below. When I looked at that, I thought that it symbolised the hope of people who survived the Holocaust, and how sad it was that people who were murdered in the Holocaust will never know the peace and tranquillity of a new life that it represents.
Closer to home here in London, at the synagogue I am proud to attend—Westminster synagogue—there are 1,564 Czech scrolls, of which there are many around the world being used in prayer in synagogues. They are housed at the synagogue in the Czech Memorial Scrolls Museum, which is well worth a visit. Each of those scrolls represents a community that does not exist any more—hundreds of years of Jewish history in eastern Europe were wiped out.
Many of us have mentioned how we have borne witness at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Like many others, I took the opportunity to visit with the Holocaust Educational Trust, and with 200 post-16 students from across Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire. I had never been there before, despite teaching and delivering education on the holocaust in schools. I had visited Dachau—another evil place—but had never taken the opportunity to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau to pay respect to those who were murdered by the Nazis and more fully to understand the scale of that killing operation.
I found the experience incredibly moving, but the place I found most moving was the Jewish cemetery in the nearby local town, where the Nazis took the headstones from the cemetery and used them on roads and pavements. Many of the headstones were recovered and are looked after by the Jewish community from Krakow, but they are not looked after by the Jewish community in that town because that community does not exist any more. The saddest thing about the cemetery is the burial of the single Jew who, almost in an act of defiance, went back and lived in the town following the end of the war.
Perhaps what I found most difficult about visiting Auschwitz was the time of year that I went, because it was a beautiful, warm spring day. Colleagues have referred to being there in the depths of winter at minus 5° or minus 10°, but for me, going there on a spring day, it was very difficult to understand how such horror could have taken place in that setting with the trees and woodland around; it simply defied belief. As many colleagues have said, we hear and read the stories and poems, and see for ourselves the true horror of what took place there.
As I have said, I used to deliver holocaust education to young people in Hull. I agree with Members from across the House that we must ensure that holocaust education remains in place across all these islands. I used to find with the young people I taught that the problem was not denial, fortunately, but disbelief. As I showed them the photographs and the footage of the holocaust, the young people were silent and some of them were moved to tears at having to believe that this had actually happened, and that human beings could be so cruel.
One piece of film that I used to use was a scene from “Schindler’s List”. There is always a debate about using Hollywood movies in holocaust education, but the scene in that film showing the liquidation of the ghetto is so powerful that I used to use it, and young people were stunned into silence at the thought that that could have happened. That is why visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau help to ensure that the holocaust is never forgotten, and it is why we should all do everything we can to ensure that holocaust education is at the heart of the curriculum, in this country and across the world.
I thank all the holocaust organisations that are involved. They have been mentioned a lot today, but I am going to refer to them again. I particularly thank Karen Pollock, the CEO of the Holocaust Educational Trust. She and her team are an inspiration for us all. I sat down with Karen and young people in Auschwitz-Birkenau on my visit, and in Tel Aviv in Israel. The work of the trust is absolutely fantastic. I pay tribute to the trust for campaigning to ensure that the holocaust is part of the national curriculum and particularly for advocating that the subject be taught at the later stages of key stage 3, when young people are emotionally developed enough to understand the full horror of it all; I know that that is important to the trust.
I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and its CEO Olivia Marks-Woldman. Along with her team, she delivered a most successful Holocaust Memorial Day last year.
I would also like to mention some of the other holocaust remembrance, education and survivor organisations, as colleagues have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon spoke about the Holocaust Survivors Centre in his constituency. The Anne Frank Trust uses Anne’s diary, and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) made reference to her visit to Anne Frank’s house. I also want to mention the Wiener Library, the Association of Jewish Refugees and the National Holocaust Centre in Newark, Nottinghamshire.
I pay tribute to the businesses that are playing their part in marking Holocaust Memorial Day. I met the Royal Bank of Scotland yesterday, which informed me of the work it is doing through its Jewish society and by encouraging its employees on Holocaust Memorial Day to take time out and reflect.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the work of the Prime Minister’s post-holocaust issues envoy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who spoke brilliantly, particularly about his recent visit to Treblinka and about holocaust denial. He has not only focused on the restitution of property and art, but has been the driving force behind the Government’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism. The definition, although not legally binding, is an important tool to help criminal justice agencies and other public bodies to understand how anti-Semitism manifests itself in the 21st century. It is really important that we recognise the definition—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) mentioned this—because we cannot deny that there has been an increase in anti-Semitism across the country and across Europe.
I used to serve on the all-party group against anti-Semitism. I visited a Jewish school in Brussels, and I was shocked by the fact that outside the school Belgian armed forces were guarding the young people who were inside. I asked those young people, “Would you wear your kippah out and about in Brussels?” They laughed; they would not. In a modern, western European capital that is the home of the European Union and a liberal, open-minded place, Jewish children are not prepared to walk about outside with a kippah on because of the risk of attack and abuse. Of course, sadly, that has happened on campuses here. Swastikas have appeared and meetings organised by Jewish societies have been violently disrupted. That is not acceptable and we cannot be silent about it.
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) was right to say that we must all acknowledge Holocaust Memorial Day, regardless of our views on the middle east—whether pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. Unfortunately, there has been an increased Israelification of anti-Semitism, using Israel and Zionism as a proxy for Jews. I have seen that and been on the receiving end of it, particularly on Twitter. There are pictures of the Star of David represented as the Nazi flag—that is unacceptable and a form of anti-Semitism.
At an event in Parliament, it was wonderful to see Laurence Rees, who produced the documentary, “The Nazis: A Warning from History”, so beautifully destroy the arguments of those who argue that Hitler was a Zionist and so on. There has been too much of that. It is ignorant and sinister and we should call it out for what it is: anti-Semitism. That also applies to attending a rally in support or holding a flag of Hamas or Hezbollah.
We should be proud of what we have done in this country to tackle anti-Semitism and our work on the UK holocaust memorial. I want to give the hon. Member for Hove time to sum up, so I will end with a quote from Zigi Shipper, whom I mentioned earlier. It epitomises Holocaust Memorial Day’s theme of how life can go on. Zigi Shipper returned to Poland about a decade ago and said:
“I went to Auschwitz after being nagged by my children.”
He recalled standing under the “Arbeit macht frei” sign at the camp entrance:
“It meant nothing to me. I stood under that sign and said: ‘After all that Hitler tried to do, he didn't succeed, for I am still here!’”
Life can go on, but only if we all take responsibility for reconciliation, rebuilding lives and communities and preventing such events from ever happening again by calling out intolerance wherever it may be.
Peter Kyle
It is the first occasion in my short time in the Commons that I have agreed with every single word that has been spoken by Members of all parties, and it was a privilege to be here for that. I would like to single out one or two Members.
The right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) spoke with steely determination to confront holocaust denial wherever they see it, but also helped to educate us about the pathways towards that.
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for accompanying me on the metaphorical and literal journey on the pathway and for his contribution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) powerfully brought to life survivors’ testimony and related that to today’s political challenges.
I thank the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who spoke with tremendous power and provided a forthright analysis of the challenges of disentangling the holocaust from today’s events in the middle east. Some people stumble naively into mixing them and we should confront that when we see it because they are separate issues that need our intellectual inquiry in two separate ways.
I have discovered that the Chamber thrives on difference and often on conflict. I hope that today we have also seen strength through consensus. I hope that that strength does not mean that we agree to walk away benignly, but that the consensus gives us steely determination to ensure that the events of the holocaust and the issues that we have discussed today are driven into the fabric of our communities so that lessons continue to be learned.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2017.
Ayrshire Growth Deal
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
This evening’s debate could not be more important to the good people of Ayrshire. As everyone at home and everyone in the Chamber can see, it is also very important to the MPs from across Scotland who have turned out to show their support for the Ayrshire growth deal. The Ayrshire growth deal is of huge importance to re-energising of the economy of the whole county of Ayrshire. The whole of Ayrshire, including the part I represent, has quite breathtaking natural beauty in parts. However, no one would deny that it also has its challenges.
The Ayrshire growth deal, should it secure the necessary support from the UK Government, would represent a step-change in economic growth and the economic prospects of Ayrshire. The Scottish Government are already supportive, but UK Government support, and the value it can bring cannot and must not be underestimated. Indeed, the entire Ayrshire growth deal depends on support from the UK Government.
Targeting the costed £359.8 million of investment would support a number of exciting projects, and generate and stimulate real, lasting and inclusive economic growth. The Scottish Government are enthusiastic and I understand—correctly, I hope—that the UK Government are receptive to it as well. I am keen tonight for the Minister to articulate his Government’s support for this bold, ambitious, innovative and transformative vision for the whole of Ayrshire. The feedback from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been most encouraging and I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has also expressed his support for this initiative. I am therefore both lobbying and urging the Minister today to do all he can to ensure that on the day of the spring Budget, 8 March, the Ayrshire growth deal is firmly on the UK Government’s agenda. There is no doubt that on the Scottish National party Benches and across the whole county of Ayrshire there is a collective will to maximise the considerable and significant economic potential of this particularly picturesque part of Scotland.
We all know that in the past such growth deals have focused on cities. However, I sense that there is some interest in seeing how such an initiative would work on a diverse county such as Ayrshire, with its mix of urbanisation, towns, rural elements and two islands. Ayrshire is a diverse county with so much to offer. There is no doubt that stimulated growth would be repaid, as it would do much to re-energise, galvanise and revitalise the considerable untapped potential of the Ayrshire economy.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate for our area. She rightly says that to date the Government have focused on city deals. City deals certainly have a place and we welcome the investment they have brought to Scotland. However, in terms of connectivity and distance between cities, there is no doubt that another approach needs to be undertaken to regenerate areas like Ayrshire, which have suffered from de-industrialisation.
I was looking today at the latest unemployment figures: 1,960 in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the 76th highest claimant rate by constituency; 1,745 in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock; 1,635 in Central Ayrshire; and 2,185 in North Ayrshire and Arran, the 29th highest claimant rate by constituency. It is therefore really important that a new way is found to re-industrialise our area.
Patricia Gibson
The figures my hon. Friend quotes paint their own picture of the challenges faced by the entire county of Ayrshire. I am sure the Minister was listening keenly and will take them on board.
For Ayrshire to truly reach its potential, it is essential to reduce inequalities across communities and give everyone a stake in Ayrshire’s growth. Therefore, inclusive growth is, and must be, an integral part of the Ayrshire growth deal business case. A successful economy must ensure that all the talents of our people are harnessed, which will help Ayrshire to be truly competitive and resilient to emerging technologies and challenges. We must work to ensure that Ayrshire folk are better connected to the economy, and have better and greater opportunities to prosper. I believe, and all MPs on the SNP Benches believe, that the Ayrshire growth deal provides a compelling route towards achieving that. We have so many resources and successes in Ayrshire to build upon, with our aerospace and space industry, life sciences and manufacturing.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As well as the beauty that my hon. Friend has mentioned, we also have incredible potential. Even in my small part of Ayrshire, we have life sciences at one end and at the other an airport that not only was Scotland’s first passenger airport but has the potential to be the UK’s first spaceport, with its long runway, its clear weather and an air traffic control centre and aerospace cluster. We have the pieces of marble in the grass; we just need help to put them on top of each other.
Patricia Gibson
My hon. Friend has well articulated the importance of the spaceport to Ayrshire and the opportunities it would bring to build on that to spread and attract growth to Ayrshire.
In addition, we can enhance Ayrshire’s beautiful coast and capitalise on the considerable opportunities that Ayrshire’s harbours and ports provide. Indeed, proposed projects are well placed to feed into the delivery of national tourism strategies, such as marine tourism. This is an area in which there is great potential for growth in Ayrshire, but the infrastructure to make it possible is essential, alongside opportunities for the provision of land for the development of new housing.
I am particularly excited about the coastal regeneration of Ardrossan. Investment of about £22 million will deliver a transformation of the port as a regional transport interchange, serving south-west Scotland. Ardrossan is Scotland’s largest and busiest ferry terminal and is well placed to play a key role in delivering wider benefits to communities and businesses across Ayrshire. The prize is a port that will serve and promote a range of opportunities—cruising, leisure, marine tourism, waterfront residential—as well as improving lifeline services to the Isle of Arran, which I believe will continue to be served by the port of Ardrossan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned the exciting project for the establishment of a spaceport at Prestwick airport. Estimates from the Spaceport UK report of 2014 show that a spaceport has the potential cumulatively to realise a baseline of £320 million of additional economic activity.
The vision is also for Ayrshire to be recognised as a centre of excellence for digital skills. This can be done by developing—indeed transforming—the use of digital technology in schools, weaving technology through the teaching and learning process. Ayrshire’s Connected Classroom initiative is a recognition that digital is a key enabler of science, technology, engineering and mathematics —the so-called STEM subjects—and aims to ensure that our young people are well prepared for our increasingly digital world. Such a digitally savvy generation will support the exciting potential of Ayrshire’s space industry and aerospace innovation district.
Alan Brown
The digital connectivity initiative is a fantastic scheme giving every kid in Ayrshire from the age of three to 18 the highest level of digital connectivity. It is a welcome ambition and will help to close the skills and productivity gaps, as those young people move into the workforce, and the aim of a 40% higher entry level into the digital workforce is laudable. Just yesterday, I was reading an EU Commission report saying that the UK has 5,000 such skills vacancies but that this figure is predicted to rise to 161,000. So such an initiative could open up opportunities across the entire UK.
Patricia Gibson
Indeed, it could. The importance of upskilling our population cannot be underestimated when we are talking about inclusive economic growth.
North Ayrshire schools have the third-highest rates of positive outcomes for school leavers in Scotland. By continuing to ensure that our transitions from school are robust and continue to develop, Ayrshire is well placed to meet changing economic challenges, and this will enable our communities to become more prosperous, ambitious and vibrant. The UK’s medicine industry is one of the leading manufacturing sectors, with exports worth more than £22 billion. The medicines manufacturing innovation centre is a national innovation centre for the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries, and north Ayrshire is shortlisted to host it. Infrastructure funding secured through the Ayrshire growth deal would go a long way to seeing it constructed in Ayrshire’s i3 investment park in Irvine before too long. Ayrshire has so much to offer. All Members, including the Minister, are invited to sample some of its delights, both in the gastronomic sense and in the context of business potential.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I am lucky enough to have some fantastic drinks companies in my constituency, including the company that produces Hendrick’s gin, and Caledonian Bottlers and Ayr Brewing Company, as well as wonderful food suppliers such as We Hae Meat, Barwheys Dairy, Chocolati and Roundsquare Roastery, which roasts coffee beans. In fact, there are too many to mention. Does my hon. Friend agree that the growth deal would give a welcome and much-needed boost to Ayrshire, which would include the food and drink sector?
Patricia Gibson
Indeed. One of Ayrshire’s real selling points, and one of the reasons why so many tourists go there—apart from the fantastic scenery and the lovely people—is the provision of gastronomic delights, some of which my hon. Friend has just mentioned. However, I would not want the Minister to think that it was just about the alcohol. We have so much more to offer—although the alcohol does go down well too.
The event at which the gastronomic delights that the Minister, and indeed all Members, are invited to sample will take place on 8 February. It will be hosted by all four Ayrshire Members, and what it will show—if, indeed, it needs to be shown to those who have not yet been lucky enough to visit the county—is that Ayrshire is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United Kingdom, which is well known for its outstanding and award-winning food and drink produce. It is home not just to a range of dairy, beef and seafood suppliers, but to world-renowned farmhouse cheese makers, ice cream producers, bakers, brewers, smokehouses, chocolatiers, and, of course, all the businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Patricia Gibson
Yes, indeed.
Perhaps it is because of the presence of all the businesses that might supply the gastronomic feast that we could put in front of you in Ayrshire, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the town of Dalry, in my constituency, houses a very well-respected Michelin-starred restaurant, which I recommend to you.
Ultimately, the Ayrshire growth deal is about people. It is about removing barriers to employment, upskilling our workforce to address the issue of low pay, and promoting apprenticeships.
Dr Whitford
I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that we have an additional strength. The three separate campuses belonging to Ayrshire College work closely with our local employers in the aerospace and food and drink sectors to ensure that the young people training in those sectors—along with other young people from the senior sections of our schools—have access to the same equipment and materials that they would use professionally. It is a great relationship: the college is delivering the skills that local industry needs.
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. That is an excellent point. I think that the other colleges in the United Kingdom should note the links between Ayrshire College and local employers. That delivery to young people of the skills that employers say they need and that are in short supply is second to none. The college has won many accolades—far too many for me to mention to the Minister today—for its work in this sphere, and in several others as well.
Alan Brown
Ayrshire College recently opened a £53 million new campus in Kilmarnock. It is a fantastic facility, and it is all about getting people ready to go into the workplace. It has been built on the site of the former Johnnie Walker bottling plant; that iconic industry has been lost to the town. As part of the growth deal, the HALO project is expected to achieve the final regeneration of the entire site. It is predicted that the project will generate nearly 1,000 jobs, and it is shovel-ready. That is another fantastic aspect of the Ayrshire growth deal: some projects come out of the ground very quickly, and we see real results within a very short time.
Patricia Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As the Minister will be well aware, economic growth creates more economic growth: it creates its own dynamic. If we secure this investment, Ayrshire will grow from a flower into a tree. [Interruption.] That was very poetic; I may represent some of the parts of the country that Robert Burns was familiar with, but I do not have his skill in that regard.
We want to remove the barriers to employment, to upskill our workforce to address the issue of low pay, to promote apprenticeships, linking them with schools and investing in our schools and local colleges, and to support local companies with the greatest ambitions for growth. We also want to attract new inward investment, to deliver on key infrastructure projects such as the Dalry bypass—which is very close to starting—to improve connectivity, to improve public transport, and to improve digital connectivity by investing in the roll-out of superfast broadband.
I am very pleased that we have secured this debate on the Ayrshire growth deal in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I am delighted that, as far as I have been able to establish, this is the first time Ayrshire has been centre-stage in the House of Commons. I am proud that my colleagues have, with me, set out the ambitious plans for Ayrshire—our bold vision which requires what is, in the scheme of things, quite a modest £359.8 million of investment, which will of course be in partnership with the Scottish Government and local authorities. I am delighted that the UK Government are engaged in this debate and I hope that, with this investment forthcoming, Ayrshire can enjoy inclusive growth and her greatest asset—her people—can reach their true potential.
If I may be permitted to have another bash at the poetry, I will add that, relative to what it is now, as much as it is now, the Ayrshire growth deal could awaken what may be called the economic sleeping giant of Ayrshire. Wonderful as this part of the country is, it could be—and I hope, with the UK Government’s help, it will be—so much more.
The Ayrshire growth deal seeks to create a virtuous circle of growth: growth in business leading to growth in employment, and growth in individual household prosperity—and, as a benefit from that, growth in health outcomes. I urge the Minister to support it, and I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer support to Ayrshire’s growth deal when he delivers his deliberations in his spring statement on 8 March. I urge him to work with us—the four Ayrshire MPs—the three Ayrshire local authorities, and the Scottish Government.
This vision is a partnership of the best in the private and public sectors and represents key stakeholders in Ayrshire. It represents the local knowledge of Ayrshire College, the University of the West of Scotland, and the Ayrshire chamber of commerce, which has been fused with the national expertise of Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Futures Trust and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. We are all working together for the good of Ayrshire and her people. I ask that the UK Government in their spring statement join in with and support that work and invest in the county and the people of Ayrshire.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate. She spoke so well for her constituency and area that I felt like I was sitting through a 20-minute commercial from the Ayrshire tourist board, if there is such a thing, for the picturesque and beautiful area she has the honour to represent. I certainly found the gastronomic delights very interesting.
I am aware that the hon. Lady raised this matter in Treasury oral questions earlier this week and has recently written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the matter. She has clearly been working hard for her constituents in raising this matter at every possible opportunity, and I congratulate her on that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to answer this debate today.
As the hon. Lady and the House will know, the UK Government are committed to ensuring that all parts of the country have the tools to grow their local economies. As such, I am pleased that we now have the city deal that has been referred to, which is either in progress or in pre-negotiation for each and every one of Scotland’s seven cities. That is important. It was mentioned earlier, but I want to reiterate it. No other part of the United Kingdom has achieved that. Every one of Scotland’s seven cities now either has a city deal in progress or has one in pre-negotiation. That is an indication of the UK Government’s commitment to ensuring that all parts of the country have the tools to grow their local economies.
In Scotland, such deals are tripartite, meaning that the arrangements involve the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the local area in which they are active. Since 2014, the UK Government have worked well in partnership with the Scottish Government to agree three ambitious city deals, which cover the Glasgow city region, the Aberdeen city region, and Inverness and the highlands. It is worth noting that local leaders in those three areas believe that, once fully implemented, the deals will unlock significant new investment in Scotland. At the 2016 Budget, the UK Government committed to opening city deal negotiations with Edinburgh and south-east Scotland and those negotiations are now in progress. At the autumn statement, the UK Government similarly committed to opening negotiations with Stirling and Clackmannanshire and the Tay cities. Our priority now is to take forward this significant body of work, in partnership with the Scottish Government and all the relevant local authorities. Following the autumn statement, I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government will have more than £800 million of additional capital funding through to 2020-21 to support such proposals.
There is interest in other areas for further deals. It is of course open to the Scottish Government, given their devolved responsibility for economic development and using the significant resources available to them, to take forward projects to enable growth in places such as Ayrshire—that beautiful area—if they wish to do so. It is important to emphasise that the Scottish Government do have devolved responsibility for economic development. Significant resources are available to them—those resources have been increasing—enabling them to take forward projects, such as the one to which the hon. Lady refers, and to support growth in areas such as Ayrshire.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate and on speaking so passionately. The Minister will be aware that my constituency is one of the areas that is currently under discussion. Industrial areas such as mine and Ayrshire were damaged beyond recognition under the previous Conservative Government, so it is absolutely incumbent on him and his colleagues to ensure that those wrongs are righted by deals such as the one proposed for Ayrshire.
Michael Ellis
I do not accept that characterisation. It is important to note that employment in North Ayrshire and Arran is up by 1,100 over the past year and by 300 overall since 2010, so things are clearly moving in the right direction.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister is correct to talk about the importance of city deals, but is it fair that communities that do not happen to be part of a big city are left to suffer without UK Government support? He was quite right to mention the Scottish Government, which are on board and doing all they can, but I said in my speech—I know he was listening—that UK Government support is essential here. Is Ayrshire to be punished simply because, through an accident of geography, it does not happen to be part of a city?
Michael Ellis
The hon. Lady clearly represents a picturesque rural area, but she will no doubt recognise that the United Kingdom Government have provided very significant support to large conurbations, to city areas, by way of the city deals, which we use as an example of the Westminster Government’s support for such areas. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the city deals are an example of the Government’s support. This option is open to the Scottish Government, who have devolved responsibility for economic development. There is no rationale for disregarding the fact that the Scottish Government, wishing to have that devolved responsibility, do have it and can use the very significant resources available to them.
Alan Brown
I had hoped that this would be a consensual debate and that we would talk about working together. We are hoping to achieve another tripartite agreement involving the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local councils, but that is not the message that we are hearing, which is a bit disappointing. Many of our Ayrshire communities have been devastated by the loss of open-cast coal mining, particularly in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). The UK Government did not contribute anything to the restoration of those mines, so I hope that they can work with the Scottish Government to provide money for this growth deal.
Michael Ellis
The United Kingdom Government are working with the Scottish Government in myriad different ways, and I could give many examples of positive developments in those areas. For our part, in addition to working to deliver the seven city deals across Scotland, we will look at this proposal in the context of wider UK Government policy, including the industrial strategy and the national productivity investment fund.
Dr Philippa Whitford
That leads exactly to my point. In the meeting that I secured between the four of us and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Secretary of State seemed particularly interested in the deal, as a non-city deal. We have three large towns but no city in Ayrshire, and there is therefore potential to learn from projects and ideas that could be shared elsewhere. Ayrshire is way up the left-hand end of the gross value added scale. All the cities that have deals are starting from a better position than Ayrshire. We have pockets of absolute rural and urban deprivation.
Michael Ellis
We want to look at all these issues, and I have said that the Ayrshire growth deal is being looked at in the context of UK Government policy, including the industrial strategy and the national productivity investment fund. The Secretary of State for Scotland went to Ayrshire just a few months ago—in June 2016, I think—and my noble Friend Lord Dunlop is due to go. The industrial strategy is due to be published shortly, after which the United Kingdom Government will want to consider carefully how it sits alongside the asks being made by the partners in Ayrshire, and by others, so that we can help to deliver the economic benefits that such proposals represent.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke eloquently about the area she has the honour to represent. We are due to publish the industrial strategy shortly, and as the United Kingdom Government we will be considering carefully how it sits alongside the asks being made by others, including in Ayrshire. Every consideration will be given to this matter so that we can help to deliver the economic benefits that such proposals represent.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Communities and Local Government
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Last summer, the nine Dorset councils submitted a proposal to my right hon. Friend to establish a combined authority. Will he ensure that the order establishing that authority is brought forward in sufficient time to enable the authorities to be set up on 1 April this year?
Sajid Javid
We have only just received the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers. We want to make sure that we take the right amount of time to consider it carefully. Whatever the result, we will make sure that enough time is allowed for this House to do its business.
[Official Report, 16 January 2017, Vol. 619, c. 683.]
Letter of correction from Sajid Javid:
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).
The correct response should have been:
Sajid Javid
We have received the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers. We want to make sure that we take the right amount of time to consider it carefully. Whatever the result, we will make sure that enough time is allowed for this House to do its business.
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
NHS Fertility Services
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered decommissioning of in vitro fertilisation and other NHS fertility services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Gillan.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate; to the right hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), for their support in securing it; and to the many other Members who are either here today or who have indicated their support for a debate on IVF. Change is urgently needed in this area, and we have broad, cross-party support for such change.
I know that it is not customary, Mrs Gillan, to refer to the Public Gallery during debates such as this one, but perhaps I can just say in passing that I am told that a number of people have travelled here today because of the importance they attach to this issue, and because of their strong feelings that what is going on is not fair and needs to change. It is through listening to their experiences that I have begun to understand the extent to which the present arrangements are not working.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than imposing a postcode lottery on our constituents by withdrawing these services, the areas under financial pressure need to become more efficient and to look at how other areas manage their health systems better to make efficiencies, so that in vitro fertilisation can be provided everywhere?
Steve McCabe
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about a postcode lottery; there is a massive variation in service, so we must strive to achieve a cost-efficient system that is genuinely national in the way it is delivered. I agree with that absolutely.
This debate is about IVF and related services. At a time of so much concern about the NHS generally, the debate could easily drift towards becoming a series of questions about other aspects of the NHS, but I am clear that we asked for this debate to raise concerns associated with those who need treatment for infertility issues.
Infertility is a problem that does not get a lot of Government or parliamentary attention; in fact, it was not debated at all in the previous Parliament. Yet we know that it is an issue that affects one in six couples in the UK and is the second most common reason for a woman to visit her GP. The problems of infertility are recognised by the World Health Organisation as a condition for which medical treatment should be provided, but that is not how we approach the matter today in England.
I am immensely grateful to my constituent Louise Jackson for bringing this issue to my attention and for giving me permission to share some of her experience with people today. Louise and her partner have been together for more than 13 years and have been trying for a baby for nearly six years. After tests confirmed that they would need IVF treatment, they were refused it because Louise’s partner already had a child, as a result of a previous relationship in 1975. That child is actually older than Louise herself, who has said:
“Anyone who is experiencing fertility problems will understand the agonising pain and upset it brings on a daily basis. The fact that we have been refused treatment on the NHS just adds to the anguish. We cannot express enough how hard it is to not be able to have children naturally, never mind being faced with the fact we’ve been saving for years for the thousands needed for this treatment. I hope one day these laws will be changed for couples like us and others in the near future.”
My information is that four clinical commissioning groups in England—Mid Essex, North East Essex, Basildon and Brentwood, and South Norfolk—have already decommissioned their assisted conception services, essentially as a cost-saving measure. Also, more than one in 10 CCGs in England are currently consulting on reducing or entirely decommissioning NHS fertility treatment. That means that more than 60 Members of Parliament represent seats where the provision of IVF services is at risk.
The guidelines produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are fairly clear on the provision of IVF services. NICE recommends that all those women who are eligible for IVF should have access to three full cycles of IVF if the woman is aged under 40, and in 2013 it updated its guidance to recommend further that women aged between 40 and 42, and who meet some additional criteria, should have access to one full cycle.
Fertility Fairness is an umbrella body that has the support of several organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Clinical Embryologists, the British Fertility Society, the National Gamete Donation Trust and the Miscarriage Association. In 2016, it undertook an audit of every CCG in England and found that only 16% of CCGs offer three cycles of IVF, which is the NICE recommendation. That was down from 24% in 2013, while the number of CCGs offering just one cycle of NHS-funded IVF treatment has leapt to 60%. The Minister is on record as saying that she finds the decommissioning of such services “unacceptable”, so she will not be surprised if I ask her what she plans to do in response to these figures.
According to NICE, a full cycle of IVF treatment should include one round of ovarian stimulation and the transfer of all resultant fresh and frozen embryos, but only four out of 209 CCGs comply with the NICE definition of a “full cycle”. As a result, in many parts of England, these efforts to provide IVF on the cheap are—perversely—wasting resources, because this incomplete offer is rarely successful and compromises the cost-effectiveness of IVF as a treatment. It is a bit like giving less than the recommended dosage of any other drug or treatment.
As I have said, NICE offers guidance on age appropriateness for IVF. However, without being required to offer any kind of explanation, some CCGs have lowered the maximum age for IVF to 35; others have introduced non-medical criteria, such as refusing couples treatment if one of them has a child from a previous relationship, as happened in the case of my constituent, Louise Jackson; and apparently even more criteria are applied for same-sex couples, including a requirement to demonstrate that they have already paid privately for six cycles of treatment before they can be considered by the NHS. Those requirements do not look like medical criteria to me; they look like crude, discriminatory rationing, based on pseudo-moralistic prejudices.
In Birmingham, CCGs justify their approach by testing their proposals via public consultation, and in 2014 a consultation covering the criteria for eight CCGs across the west midlands was undertaken. Of the 351 people who responded, 40% were against providing IVF to a couple where one party has a child from a previous relationship; 40% disagreed with that view; and 20% did not know. Nevertheless, those proposals are now the criteria that must be met. I cannot imagine such a crude approach being adopted for determining treatment eligibility for any other medical condition, but that of course is part of the problem.
Too many people think, in defiance of the World Health Organisation, that it is a lifestyle issue and not a medical condition. That is not helped by the fact that the Department of Health merely asks that CCGs “have regard to” the NICE guidelines. This recognised medical condition can have a number of related impacts. If left untreated, it can result in stress, anxiety, depression and the breakdown of relationships. A recent survey of almost 1,000 people with infertility problems conducted by Middlesex University found that 90% of respondents reported feeling depressed and 42% reported feeling suicidal, which was up from 20% when a similar study was conducted in 1997. Some 70% reported a detrimental impact on their relationship, and 15% said that it had led to the break-up of their relationship.
The debate is not about statistics, though; it is about real people and the devastating impact that being denied treatment for infertility problems can have on their lives. On Monday afternoon, I took part in a digital debate with many members of the public, and they helped contribute to our debate today. Hundreds of people shared their experiences. I cannot name them all, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their contributions. I want to briefly share just a few examples that illustrate the kind of problems that mean we need to see some significant change in the delivery of this service.
Kelly Da Silva from south Derbyshire said:
“This is such an important issue for me, the anxiety and depression caused as a direct result of infertility and involuntary childlessness has affected every aspect of my life and caused me to leave a successful 12-year teaching career. The emotional and social impacts are absolutely devastating.”
Becky Thomas is from Hertfordshire, and comes under the direction of a Cambridgeshire CCG. She said:
“My local CCG cut the amount of cycles they offer from three down to one and are considering getting rid altogether. I live in one area that actually offers three full cycles however I come under a completely different CCG. It shouldn’t be a postcode lottery. It’s not a lifestyle choice. It’s a medical condition.”
Erin Nina Desirae from Sheffield said:
“I am in a same-sex marriage. My wife and I have been together for six years and have always talked about having children. We assumed that the law in this country would support us and enable us to try for a family with help from the NHS. Unfortunately, we were surprised and hurt to find that same-sex couples are not offered fertility treatment on the NHS until we have first self-funded at least six cycles ourselves. Whilst a heterosexual couple can receive NHS treatment after two years of trying to conceive. This feels like discrimination. Why should we be treated differently?”
What of the costs? Evidence suggests that many of the decommissioning and service reduction decisions are driven largely by budget considerations. Reports show that the cost to CCGs of commissioning one cycle of IVF can range from £1,300 to £6,000. It varies dramatically across the country. For example, it is much cheaper in Newcastle than it is in Birmingham, without any obvious explanation. What kind of way is that to run a health service and provide a vital treatment? Is it not a classic example of the fragmentation of the NHS that many predicted would follow the Lansley reorganisation?
In England, more than 200 CCGs are responsible for setting their own criteria and commissioning their own IVF services. To make matters worse, research suggests that the high cost of IVF in the private sector is forcing people to travel to such countries as the Czech Republic, where IVF treatment is far cheaper. The problem is that IVF is not anywhere near as well regulated in those countries as it is in the UK. As a direct result of reducing services in the UK, the NHS is being saddled with the high cost of complicated multiple pregnancies and births and other postnatal issues. There is also the additional cost to mental health services, which I touched on earlier. [Interruption.] As you can see, Mrs Gillan, I have successfully transposed a page of my notes. I hope you will bear with me for one second.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Mr McCabe, this sort of thing happens to people all the time. We will bear with you.
Steve McCabe
I cannot believe I have done it, but I am extremely grateful for your patience.
As I was saying, the costs of people having to go abroad fall on the NHS, and that leads to further complications that may impact on our mental health services.
In the course of my speech, I have concentrated on the impact on women, but the issue does not solely affect women. It affects couples, same-sex couples and men. I understand that CCGs that are cutting back on IVF generally are also cutting back on ICSI—I am told that it stands for intracytoplasmic sperm injection and is the most common treatment for men with infertility problems—and I worry that men’s experiences of infertility are not fully appreciated. They may also suffer hidden trauma and stress as a result of their problems. I am grateful to Richard Clothier from Dunstable who said:
“The emotional strain served to us when our infertility was confirmed was absolutely horrific and debilitating. However, this does not touch the sides when compared with the mental health deterioration we endured from the precise point at which we learned our entitlement has been slashed by two thirds. Luton, in the same county, has three cycles, the rest of us in Bedfordshire get just one cycle.”
What do I hope to get from this debate? I hope that the Minister, by the time she has had a chance to reflect on all the contributions and the terrible experiences of so many people, will have heard enough to be convinced that she should set up an investigation into the provision of IVF services in England. I hope she will be persuaded to offer much stronger guidance to clinical commissioning groups that in all normal circumstances they should be expected to comply with NICE guidelines and at the very least offer a clear and unambiguous explanation for their reasons when they choose not to follow NICE guidelines. I hope she will be persuaded to look again at the case for setting a national tariff for the provision of IVF. It is simply ludicrous that when NHS resources are so stretched, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said earlier, the same treatment can vary in price between £1,300 and £6,000. Those who have suffered with this condition feel they have been ignored and mistreated for far too long. They are entitled to expect that we will now act to address the problem.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing it. I appeared with him in front of the rather intimidating Backbench Business Committee, but thanks to his eloquence and advocacy we now have time to raise this issue in the House. Hon. Members frequently table questions about IVF, but I do not recall when we last had a debate on the subject. It is right that we have the chance to raise the issue, which has frequently crossed my desk since I was lucky enough to be elected to represent the Wantage constituency. Like the hon. Gentleman, I will talk about some of the cases that have come across my desk. They will sound very similar to those that he raised, because couples not being able to have children and not being able to access the treatment that can help them have children has a huge emotional and health impact on them.
As the hon. Gentleman said in his eloquent opening speech, which covered all the issues, it is important to stress that infertility is a disease. Choosing to have children—I hate to put it like this—is not a lifestyle choice; it is a fundamental choice that many people are lucky enough to be able to make. People who are not able to conceive children suffer from a disease, and I think it is therefore incumbent on the national health service to help combat the impact of that disease, as it does for many other diseases. This issue is much more prevalent than people realise: it affects one in seven couples in the UK. I am sure everybody in this House knows people who have been affected directly, and our constituents contact us about it. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is the second most common reason why women visit their GP.
We have also heard how more and more clinical commissioning groups are now disinvesting in NHS fertility services. The signals from NICE, the Government and the CCGs themselves clearly show that fertility services are seen as second-class NHS services that do not rank alongside other, more important services. We in this House know from the many debates we have had, and not least from the huge increase in the profile of and focus on mental health services, that treating something as a second-order issue stores up significant problems. We can reverse that attitude through sustained campaigning. As has been pointed out, in 2016 North East Lincolnshire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Herts Valley, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and Bedfordshire CCGs all cut their fertility services and now offer the bare minimum: one funded IVF cycle. Approximately 10% of CCGs are currently considering disinvestment.
The NICE clinical guidance has been around for more than 10 years. It is important to remember that this is not a static issue: the cost of infertility treatment has fallen dramatically and its effectiveness has increased. The second or third cycle tends to be the one that helps a couple to conceive, so I think NICE was visionary and right to say that three full cycles should be offered to women under 40. It is important to remember that CCGs restrict fertility services not only through the front door by making it clear that they will offer only one cycle, but through the back door by restricting the age at which women can access them. In Oxfordshire, for example, the age limit is 35, not 40.
There is also the issue of how a cycle is defined. In Oxfordshire, one fresh cycle is offered to those under 35, and no frozen transfers are allowed. Other definitions of a cycle allow frozen embryos that have been created from the first cycle to be used, so Oxfordshire does not comply with what I understand to be NICE’s definition of a cycle.
Going back to fertility services being seen as second-class services, Oxfordshire CCG’s response to me when I asked it to comply with the NICE guidelines was, “How are you going to fund it? What other services are we going to have to cut to fund fertility treatment?” It was clearly posited as an either/or, and the undercurrent of the message was, “We are funding the important services. Additional fertility services are a luxury. You are asking us to spend £x million on a luxury.”
To defend Oxfordshire CCG, it uses the NICE cost guidelines when it works out what the additional costs would be. It claims that they would be £2.5 million in year 1, four-and-a-bit million pounds in year 2, £5 million in year 3 and just under £5 million in years 4 and 5. What depresses me about that is the fact that it simply took the off-the-shelf guidance from NICE, which gives the game away: it is simply a desktop exercise by a CCG that is not really interested in addressing the issue. It should be possible for it to investigate with a range of different providers how it can potentially reduce the cost. The cost variation in fertility treatment can range from something like £2,000 to up to £8,000 for a cycle, so it is possible to at least engage with providers to investigate how one can provide a cost-effective service.
I also challenged the CCG on how rigorous it is in stopping services that are out of date and past their usefulness. My understanding—I am sure the Minister will confirm this—is that CCGs should be carrying out an ongoing process of reviewing all the services they are currently funding, because there are probably many services that are out of date or falling into misuse but are still being funded.
I pay tribute to Fertility Fairness, which campaigns assiduously on this issue. It made the point that treatment can cost about £2,000 in the north of England, £6,500 in the south and £3,500 across the UK as a whole. One of its asks, which perhaps the Minister can respond to, is this. CCGs can take refuge by charging the highest cost possible, which acts as a barrier to what we want to achieve. If there were a national tariff, more CCGs might be tempted to come to the table and increase what they are doing to support fertility services.
The Minister is not only a fellow Oxfordshire MP but an absolutely brilliant Health Minister. I know that to a certain extent I am knocking at an open door, because she has spoken very strongly about this issue in public. She said:
“Fertility problems can have a serious and lasting impact on those affected. It is important that the NHS provide access to fertility services for those who need clinical help to start a family. I am very disappointed to learn that access to IVF treatment on the NHS has been reduced in some places and it is unacceptable that some Clinical Commissioning Groups have stopped commissioning it completely. I would strongly encourage all CCGs to implement the NICE Fertility guidelines in full, as many CCGs have successfully done. The Department of Health, NHS England and professional and stakeholder groups are working together to develop benchmark pricing to ensure CCGs can get best value for their local investment.”
That is very welcome news indeed.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out that there are knock-on costs to not providing fertility treatment in the UK. We know, for example, that many couples understandably go abroad to fund and access fertility services, but different regulations apply abroad. Often, many more embryos are implanted in treatment abroad, which can lead to multiple pregnancies. Multiple pregnancies can lead to greater complications, so paradoxically that can lead to increased costs for the NHS. We would all much prefer people living in the UK to be able to access more familiar services, instead of having to go abroad and take those risks.
I mentioned that all of us speaking in the debate will have real stories to tell. We are speaking not in a vacuum about some impersonal procedure, but about a disease that affects the lives of our constituents significantly. The reason why I supported the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak in securing the debate, and the reason why I am present, is the letters I receive as a Member of Parliament from my constituents.
One 33-year-old constituent wrote to ask how the situation was fair given that in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, people are entitled to three full cycles of IVF—I understand that the Scottish Government are moving to three full cycles early this year. For four and a half years she and her husband have been trying to conceive. They have been through every test, but all the results have come back as normal, so they have what is called unexplained fertility. They pinned all their hopes on a single funded cycle of IVF, although that was difficult to accept. She points out that infertility is not a choice made by women; they have no control over it. Her first cycle, in August, failed and she went on to a frozen egg cycle, but unfortunately miscarried. Her emotional status is now such that she sees her GP regularly, has been referred to TalkingSpace, an NHS service, and awaits counselling. She was quoted £6,000 for a private cycle—her parents helped with the cost of the treatment—although it transpired that the overall cost was about £8,000. That second cycle failed, too, and the couple will now remortgage their property to fund a third cycle.
Those who think of infertility as a second-order issue should consider that some people will mortgage their financial future to treat the disease, as people might do for other diseases. The idea that infertility is something that one can simply put to one side is absolutely ludicrous. Another constituent wrote about having to go to Barcelona for treatment, which cost about £12,000. A third constituent, at the age of 36, was again refused IVF treatment, and she is now funding her treatment privately.
Infertility is clearly a disease, and one that affects many couples throughout the UK, and some of the devolved Administrations are moving forward on it. I respect the difficult choices that clinical commissioning groups have to make, but the NICE guidance is crystal clear and fair. The guidance sanctions not unlimited cycles but only three, recognising that the first cycle often fails. The technology continues to advance, prices continue to fall and there is little evidence from my CCG or, I suspect, many others of active engagement on the issue, such as research on the ground in real time into what it might cost to procure fertility services, as opposed to simply using off-the-shelf NICE cost guidance to rebut my constituents’ concerns.
The lack of infertility treatment has hidden costs, as the hon. Gentleman said, in mental health and emotional issues and the ongoing costs when people go abroad for treatment that might have an impact back home. A great step forward would be if the Minister were to bring forward a national tariff, or if research were commissioned into some of the ongoing costs of not providing infertility treatment. I encourage the Minister to continue to hold CCGs to account for not complying with NICE guidance.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and the right hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) on securing this extremely important and timely debate. As we have heard, difficulty conceiving is a problem that will affect around one in six couples in the UK. I want to highlight the experience of one couple whom I know personally, although many elements of their story will resonate with others who have been affected by fertility problems and experienced difficulties accessing IVF treatment on the NHS.
When that couple made the decision to start a family of their own, there was no doubt in their minds that they would have a child together. Even as the early months of trying yielded no success and as many of the people around them, their friends, family members and colleagues, started to fall pregnant, they remained hopeful and expected that it would simply be a matter of time until they themselves conceived. After more than a year without success, and as the doubts that were absent at the beginning started to emerge, the expected did not happen and a sense of heartache, frustration and anxiety began to replace the hope that had gone before. They visited their GP to ask for help and advice, and so ensued a lengthy process involving tests, hospital referrals, and invasive and non-invasive procedures alike, yet the root cause of the problem remained unexplained.
Just as the couple had all but given up hope of conceiving naturally, they fell pregnant, nearly three years after initially making the decision to start a family together. Here, amid the darkness of their difficult journey towards prospective parenthood, emerged a shining beacon of hope. Yet, as we know, beacons can be so easily and cruelly extinguished, and so it was that only 10 weeks later they endured a devastating and heartbreaking miscarriage. The almost one and a half years that followed the miscarriage were punctuated by a continued inability to conceive, further visits to their GP, more tests and, ultimately, referral back to the hospital. The couple were eventually told in November of last year, nearly five years after starting their journey, that their last, best hope of conceiving was through IVF treatment.
More devastating news was to follow, however, because the couple were told that, despite having a clear clinical need for treatment, they were ineligible to access IVF on the NHS in their area. The reason: their local CCG uses arbitrary access criteria that are not applied in other areas of the country in order to ration access to treatment for financial reasons. A miscarriage in the previous three years is one of the criteria used to deny funding—in essence penalising our couple for experiencing a tragic event over which they had absolutely no control.
The unfairness of the situation is further exacerbated by the knowledge that were the couple to live in a different part of the country—my own area of Coventry, for example—they would be eligible for at least one fully funded cycle of IVF on the NHS. In other areas, they would be eligible for three fully funded cycles. That inequitable postcode lottery adds insult to injury for a couple who, like many others, are already trying to cope with the distressing effects of infertility. The couple are now faced with a situation in which their only opportunity for treatment comes with an enormous financial outlay. Therefore, treatment is reduced to a simple financial decision: those who can afford it have the treatment they need, and those who cannot do not—hardly a just system.
That couple, like many other couples throughout the country who are experiencing fertility problems, deserve fair and equal access to treatment. They deserve an NHS that fulfils its guiding principle of delivering care and treatment free at the point of delivery and according to need. To achieve that, the Government must act to eliminate the regional variations in IVF treatment provision, including the use of arbitrary access criteria, and ultimately seek to ensure that all CCGs routinely commission fertility treatment in line with NICE guidelines. That would mean eligible couples having access to three full cycles of IVF, which would significantly increase the chance of successful conception. I hope that the Minister will make such a commitment.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
As no other Members are seeking to catch my eye, I will now move to the winding-up speeches. I call the Opposition spokesman, Mr Justin Madders.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)—they both made excellent contributions—and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this extremely important debate. My hon. Friend has been a keen campaigner on this issue, and his expertise and passion were clear when he described the urgent need for change. This is a huge issue that affects many couples up and down the country.
My hon. Friend described the rationing that CCGs are undertaking as crude and based on pseudo-moralistic prejudice. He rightly said that, in other areas of the health service, we would not base decisions on allowing access to treatment on such prejudices. He highlighted well the human aspects of this issue with personal accounts that I do not think any of us could have failed to be moved by, and he rightly highlighted the additional burden on the NHS of having to deal with complications from births resulting from treatments received abroad, where regulatory regimes may be less strict. I do not know whether the Minister is able to examine the cost of that for the health service, but that may be one way to build a financial argument for not rationing treatment. The moral argument has already been put extremely well.
The right hon. Member for Wantage also spoke in a measured and knowledgeable manner. He summed up the issue when he said that signals are being sent that the fertility service is a second-class service. He rightly pointed out that the cost of treatment has come down and its effectiveness has increased. In those circumstances, one would expect availability to improve, but that is clearly not the case. He spoke about the personal experiences of his constituents, one of whom said that infertility is not a choice. That is the perfect riposte to those who argue that IVF treatment is a lifestyle decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) spoke about her own friends’ experience. She conveyed clearly how their hope evaporated as time went on, and how after five years that hope was finally dashed on the cruel and inhumane ground that they had suffered a miscarriage in the last three years. We know from other debates how hard it is for a couple to lose a child in that way, so it is surely unconscionable that we allow that to be a factor in denying people access to fertility treatment.
Since being appointed to the Front Bench, I have been involved in several debates about issues that traditionally have not received the attention that they deserve, perhaps because they have been seen as too difficult to discuss or seemed taboo. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, this issue was not debated at all in the previous Parliament, so we clearly do not talk about it enough, despite the fact, as Members have said, that it is the second most common reason for women to visit their GPs. As we have heard, one in seven, or one in six couples are affected by infertility. Whichever of those figures we want to stick with, that means that millions of people face a serious and lasting impact on their lives. Sadly, that results in stress, anxiety, depression and relationship breakdown. In some cases, infertility is the result of another serious condition, the impact of which couples are already having to deal with. I therefore welcome the opportunity to give a voice to people who often struggle silently with this disease and increasingly face the additional frustration of an unfair and unjustifiable postcode lottery.
Before I talk about the rationing and decommissioning of infertility treatment, I, too, want to talk about the human impact to put into context what we are talking about. Like other Members who have spoken, I have been contacted about this issue by a constituent. Her name is Zoey Evans, and she was denied IVF treatment by NHS West Cheshire clinical commissioning group, despite the fact that her infertility was caused by gynaecological treatment, part of which was undertaken without her express consent. The reason the CCG gave for her ineligibility is one that we have heard given by other CCGs—that her partner had a child from a previous relationship. The exceptional circumstances of her case and the cause of her infertility do not appear to have been adequately considered. I know from talking to Zoey how devastating the decision to refuse her the opportunity to become a mother has been for her, and the fact that she finds herself in that position only because of previous treatment on the NHS has made it even more difficult to deal with. Every avenue has been explored. I do not mind saying that I know that Zoey would make a great mum, and it is hugely frustrating to know that, if she had lived in a different area, she might have been given that chance.
Zoey’s situation, like many of the other personal tales we have heard today, demonstrates the point that has been raised already that infertility, as defined by the World Health Organisation, is a disease with an identified treatment—a treatment that is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We are in a situation where, in some parts of the country, the NHS is allowed to ignore an individual’s healthcare needs as well as the NICE guidelines and effectively add another barrier to treatment by introducing further arbitrary criteria.
In the run-up to this debate, I was contacted by another individual, Richard, who also contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. As we have heard, Richard lives in Dunstable, and as such, he and his partner were entitled to only one cycle of NHS-funded treatment, which sadly was unsuccessful. He emailed me and described what it is like to deal with infertility. My hon. Friend read one quote, but I picked out another, about the human impact, that I thought was equally powerful. Richard said:
“It is very hard to explain to someone who has not experienced infertility the mental health struggle that you go through. If I had to describe our feelings with one statement, I would liken them to the emotion and turmoil that one goes through when a relative dies, the difference being with infertility, the feelings experienced do not slowly ease over time—they intensify.”
He told me of his anger about the fact that, if he lived just one mile from his current address, he would fall into the Luton CCG area, where he would have been entitled to three cycles of treatment rather than the one he received, which might have helped him to become a parent. That illustrates the perverse and cruel nature of the postcode lottery for treatment, which I will now address.
As we know, the NICE clinical guidance on infertility issued in 2004 is extremely clear. It says that
“all eligible couples should have access to three full cycles of IVF where the woman is aged below 40.”
Further guidance was issued in 2013, which recommended that women aged between 40 and 42 should have access to one full cycle. NICE, which was founded in 1999 to end the postcode lottery in prescribing, made those recommendations after deeming such interventions to be a reasonable cost and a clinically effective use of NHS resources. Incredibly, as we have heard, the charity Fertility Fairness found that, of the 209 clinical commissioning groups in England, just four follow the NICE guidance in full, despite CCGs having a legal duty to have regard to NICE guidelines when commissioning treatments. Again, the words of the right hon. Member for Wantage about a second-class service ring true.
When the previous public health Minister, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), was challenged on that in a written question, the response we got was:
“NHS England expects that all those involved in commissioning infertility treatment services to be fully aware of the importance of having regard to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence fertility guidelines.”
The reality is, as we have heard, that there are enough caveats in that statement to render it meaningless. In another response, she went further and said:
“Blanket restrictions on procedures that do not take account of the individual healthcare needs of patients are unacceptable.”
We all agree with that. However, she stopped short of saying what the Government planned to do about the fact that 98% of CCGs are failing to apply the NICE recommendations in full. We know that at least 45% of them do not offer a full cycle and that more than 80% do not meet the recommendations on the number of cycles. If those restrictions are unacceptable—I think there is general agreement on that—we need to know what Ministers will do to change the situation. What is the point of having NICE recommendations if CCGs, facing huge financial pressures, can disregard them without any penalty?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, access to treatment is being reduced, and about 10% of CCGs, including my own, West Cheshire, are consulting on that. What can we ask from the Government to stop the further slide away from recommending treatments? Does the Minister accept that something needs to be done? The impression given is that the guidelines can be routinely ignored. Does she accept that the impression can be given of an abrogation of responsibility? Does she accept that that raises real issues about accountability and legitimacy? It is called local decision making, but I do not think people on the receiving end feel that decisions are being made locally in their interests at all.
If the Government do not take a more robust stance when NICE guidance is being ignored by CCGs, they are not only accepting but entrenching the notion of a postcode lottery. We therefore need to look again at whether to strengthen NICE’s role in cases where there is clearly stated treatment that is affordable and effective but we see CCGs failing to implement that advice. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said by me and other Members about how we can move that issue forward.
As we know, infertility treatments are far from the only example of NICE-recommended treatments not being commissioned. Postcode lotteries exist for a whole range of medical interventions such as hernia repair, hip and knee replacements, cataracts and varicose vein surgeries. Further rationings of treatments are being proposed by CCGs across the country as they struggle to cope with finances that simply are not keeping up with demand.
I have mentioned my CCG several times already. I do not wish to be over-critical of it because it is in a difficult position: its core funding allocation for the year is £9 million less than the funding formula says it should be. That gap is projected to close slowly in the next five years, but there will still be millions of pounds of shortfall every year over that period. At a time of increased demand, inevitably, it is being forced into this position, as are many other CCGs. Clearly, financial pressures are driving those decisions not just in my CCG but across the country. That does not chime with the claims we have heard that the health service has been given everything it has asked for.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and the right hon. Member for Wantage said, the postcode lottery is exacerbated by the huge variance in the amounts that CCGs pay for a single cycle of IVF, from as low as just over £2,000 to possibly three times as much in other parts of the country. In response to a written question on 21 April 2016, the previous public health Minister said that
“the Department and NHS England are considering options for addressing variation in the prices that CCGs are currently paying for in vitro fertilisation treatment.”
A report by an expert group on commissioning NHS infertility provision identified that
“a lack of knowledge and expertise in commissioning fertility services was a barrier to compliance with NICE guidelines”.
How close are we to a national benchmark on price? What support can be put in place to assist CCGs when they are commissioning fertility services?
I bring my remarks to a close by reminding us of the founding principles of the national health service: good healthcare, available to all and free at the point of use. Those founding principles came some 30 years before the first IVF birth, but, whatever the advances in medical science, they should apply to any treatments where a medical case is made for their use, not just to people living in certain parts of the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is not in his place, on securing this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss NHS fertility services. This has been a moving debate and, on behalf of the Government, I recognise at the outset that infertility is a serious condition, affecting a growing number of people: women and men and same-sex couples. I personally thank all of those who have allowed their stories to be shared today. They remind us powerfully of the distress that infertility causes. The value of their being shared in the debate cannot be overstated.
It is important to remember that those stories are not isolated cases. As hon. Members are well aware, fertility problems are estimated to affect one in seven heterosexual couples and, for couples who have been trying to conceive for more than three years without success, the likelihood of pregnancy occurring in the following year is 25% or less. We should keep those figures in our minds.
As my right hon. Friend said, infertility can and does have a powerful and lasting impact on the quality of life of those affected. Research has shown that there can often be psychological effects, as powerfully described in the debate, for both men and women suffering from fertility problems. It can cause stress and it puts pressure on relationships, primarily between the couple themselves but also on relationships with family and friends. It is therefore important that the NHS provides access to fertility services for those who need clinical help to start a family.
The availability of NHS fertility treatment is and always has been a matter for local determination. As my right hon. Friend said, these are not easy decisions to make, but we expect them to be made fairly. Decisions on the level of service provision are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare need. That has been the case since the introduction of the purchaser-provider split in the 1990s, and today that determination is, as we all know, made by CCGs, which are clinician-led and have a statutory responsibility to commission healthcare services that meet the needs of their whole population, reducing inequalities and improving care quality.
While provision of services will, by necessity, vary—for example, the health needs and priorities of the population of Birmingham will not be the same as that of Bournemouth—it is right that those difficult prioritisation decisions are led by clinicians who know their patients and local areas best rather than being made centrally. The Government have made it clear that blanket restrictions on any healthcare treatment—including fertility services—are unacceptable. Where a service is not routinely commissioned, clinicians can still make individual funding requests for their patients when a clinical case can be made and if treatment is likely to provide significant benefit. It is the role of NHS England to ensure that CCGs are not breaching their statutory responsibility to provide services that meet the needs of their local population and to take action if such breaches do take place.
Steve McCabe
I recognise what the Minister says about this being an issue for local determination. However, does she agree that it does not make sense to use moralistic criteria to ration the provision of services, which—as in the example I cited in Birmingham—is then put to a public poll that produces an inconclusive result on a very low turnout? Surely that is not the kind of local determination we want. Is that not something that NHS England should act on?
Nicola Blackwood
The hon. Gentleman gave a very good opening speech in which he raised some points that I will comment on. The quality of commissioning of fertility services is one of those points, and having regard for guidance already in place to guide local commissioners in commissioning fertility services is a point on which I am about to comment. He has anticipated my speech as only a seasoned politician can.
NICE first introduced its fertility guidelines in 2004. As with all clinical service guidelines, they have never been mandatory. Successive Administrations have supported the principle of locally determined implementation of key recommendations of the guidelines, because decisions about local services should be made as close to patients as possible by those best placed to work with patients and the public in their area to understand their needs. However, it is sadly the case that implementation has been variable over the years, particularly with the provision of three IVF cycles for qualifying couples, as we have heard. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and the shadow Minister rightly said, the 2016 Fertility Fairness survey showed that just 16% of CCGs provided the recommended three cycles of IVF, with 22% providing two, 60% providing one and 2% providing no IVF funding at all.
I understand that commissioners in some areas are undertaking their own evidence reviews, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, to determine whether their CCG should offer IVF. I take this opportunity to say that that is unnecessary. NICE was established for the specific purpose of reviewing the available clinical and scientific evidence of a treatment’s effectiveness and, working with a wide range of stakeholders, to make recommendations based on that evidence about services that should be available to all within the NHS. NICE guidelines for fertility services are robust and fit for purpose, and there is no need for them to be second-guessed by commissioners.
The hon. Gentleman also raised NICE guidelines for same-sex couples. NICE guidelines seek to offer heterosexual and same-sex couples the same access to investigation and treatment for fertility problems, the criterion for which is a failure to conceive over a set period of time. NICE sets that criterion to ensure that NHS funding is available for donor sperm for female same-sex couples, or surrogacy arrangements for male same-sex couples, on the basis that they are medically sub-fertile, not that their childlessness is owing to the absence of gametes from the opposite sex—sperm or eggs.
Access to NHS-funded investigations is commissioned in female same-sex couples who fail to conceive after six cycles of artificial insemination within a 12-month period. NICE recognises that same-sex couples could be disadvantaged, because they may have to pay for artificial insemination before they can be considered for NICE assessment and possible treatment. NICE considers six cycles to be equivalent to the 12-month period of unprotected intercourse required of heterosexual couples before they are offered investigation for fertility problems. Same-sex couples are offered access to professional consultation and advice in reproductive medicine before they embark on attempts to conceive, to ensure that they are informed about appropriate and safe self-funding attempts. I can tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that NICE is due to review its fertility guidelines this year, and he may wish to write to NICE’s guidelines review team to offer his views on the issue. The Department of Health will certainly be doing so.
On the implementation of NICE guidelines, I commend CCGs, such as Camden, Oldham and others that have been mentioned, that have implemented the NICE fertility guidelines in full and continue to offer three IVF cycles to qualifying couples. That shows it is entirely possible for CCGs to implement NICE’s IVF provision recommendations. It was disheartening to learn from the Fertility Fairness survey that access to IVF treatment on the NHS has been reduced in so many places, and it is deeply disappointing that some CCGs have stopped routinely commissioning it. I strongly encourage all CCGs to implement the NICE fertility guidelines in full, as some CCGs are successfully doing.
Justin Madders
The Minister has correctly identified that some CCGs are not providing any treatment at all. Does she think that blanket policy should be dealt with?
Nicola Blackwood
I am about to go on to work that we are doing to assist CCGs with better commissioning, including giving them advice on pricing, which the shadow Minister mentioned. Perhaps he will allow me to do that; I think it will be enlightening for him.
Work is under way to assist CCGs in better commissioning fertility services for their local community. It is right that we do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage was correct—the cost of IVF is falling, but not all CCGs are benefiting from that. We know that the prices that fertility clinics charge CCGs for an IVF cycle vary, and that some CCGs are not contracting in the most effective way.
The Fertility Fairness survey reported that the price being charged by service providers for an IVF cycle varied across the country, from around £2,000 at the bottom end to more than £6,000 at the top, although it is not clear what all of those treatment cycles involve. The Department of Health, NHS England and professional and stakeholder groups are working together to develop benchmark pricing for fertility services to ensure that CCGs get the best value for their money. That is obviously the first step to be taken before NHS England’s longer term work towards developing a national tariff, which my right hon. Friend called for.
In addition to that initiative, the national fertility regulator—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—is developing commissioning guidance that aims to improve the quality of commissioning, for example by encouraging greater use of single embryo transfers where appropriate for a patient. That does not reduce the chance of a woman having a baby but significantly reduces the incidence of multiple births, with their attendant risks and complications for mothers and their babies. NHS England has agreed to disseminate and promote that guidance to all CCGs in England.
Those approaches are intended to raise the level of knowledge and expertise within CCGs to ensure that they are able to commission services appropriately in what is a specialist area, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)—who is no longer in his seat—called for. It would also be helpful for CCGs to pool their resources and expertise and collaborate more with each other to get a better deal for their patients. That has happened in the north of England, where members of two commissioning collaboratives are able to offer three IVF cycles to qualifying couples.
As I hope has been clear, it is the Government’s view that infertility is a serious medical condition. Those suffering from infertility who meet the criteria in the NICE fertility guidelines for NHS-funded treatment should be able to seek that treatment. We do not agree that clinical infertility should not be part of a comprehensive national health service. Reflecting on the strength of feeling expressed today, I will be writing to NHS England to ask that it communicates clearly to CCGs the expectation that NICE fertility guidelines should be followed by all.
The Department of Health, NHS England and professional and stakeholder groups will redouble efforts to develop the benchmark pricing for fertility services, which, as I have said, is a precursor to NHS England introducing a national tariff. NICE will continue with its review of fertility guidelines this year. I hope that series of actions demonstrates just how seriously the Government take this situation, and leaves all those watching the debate confident of our commitment to finding practical solutions to this serious problem.
Steve McCabe
I thank the various Members who have taken part in this debate: the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has now left. It is never easy on a Thursday afternoon, but I really felt we had to have some focus on this issue in this place today.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the tone she adopted in her response. One reason why I asked her to instigate an investigation into what is happening is that I understand, from a parliamentary question I submitted, that the Government do not, as a matter of routine, centrally collect information on the provision of infertility services. While I acknowledge her point about provision being locally determined, the extent of the disparity has been a revelation to me. It is difficult to believe we are talking about a national health service when we see that level of disparity. I gently say to her that there would still be some merit in a further investigation into the extent of the variation in England at present.
I am extremely pleased to hear that the Minister plans to write to NHS England. I interpret that as meaning she will put pressure on NHS England to put pressure on the CCGs that are not complying with the NICE guidelines. I will certainly take the opportunity to write to NICE about the experience of same-sex couples, as she suggested, although the key here is obviously that the NICE guidelines have to be followed. That is the central problem.
I was extremely pleased to hear that the Minister is taking steps on benchmark pricing, which may well lead to the construction of a national tariff. All I will say on that is: the sooner, the better. If she were able at some stage to offer us a realistic timescale for that, it would be some comfort to the very many people who have contacted all of us to explain the pain and anguish they have suffered as a result of this condition. I am grateful to Members for their contributions and to the Minister for a thoughtful response.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
This has been a very valuable and important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered decommissioning of in vitro fertilisation and other NHS fertility services.
Written Statements
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Overseas-owned Plutonium
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has agreed to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA):-
Taking ownership of 600 kg of material previously owned by a Spanish utility.
Taking ownership of 5 kg of material previously owned by a German organisation.
These transactions, which have been agreed by the Euratom supply agency, will not result in any new plutonium being brought into the UK, and will not therefore increase the overall amount of plutonium in the UK.
The Department has agreed to these transactions on the grounds that they offer a cost-effective and beneficial arrangement, which allows the UK to gain national control over more of the civil plutonium located in the UK, and facilitates conclusion of outstanding contracts with the Spanish and German counterparties. The revenue from the transaction is also expected to be of significant benefit to the UK and sufficient to cover the cost of the long term management of the additional plutonium.
The UK has committed to publish annual figures for national holdings of civil plutonium at the end of each calendar year to improve transparency and public confidence. The most recently published data for 2015 can be found at the following link, published on the 14 November 2016:
http://www.onr.org.uk/safeguards/iaeauk.htm
This data will be updated in due course to reflect the changes described above.
[HCWS422]
Wales Bill: English Votes for English Laws
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I am pleased to announce the publication of analysis of English votes for English laws in relation to Government amendments to the Wales Bill during its passage through the House of Lords.
The English votes for English laws process applies to public Bills in the House of Commons. To support the process, the Government have agreed that they will provide information to assist the Speaker in considering whether to certify that Bill or any of its provisions for the purposes of English votes for English laws. Bill provisions that relate exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and which have a subject matter within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures, can be certified.
The memorandum provides an assessment of tabled Government amendments to the Wales Bill, for the purposes of English votes for English laws, ahead of Commons consideration of Lords amendments (CCLA). The Department’s assessment is the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill.
This analysis reflects the position should all the Government amendments be accepted.
The memorandum can be found on the Bill documents page of the Parliament website at: http://services.parliament. uk/bills/2016-17/wales.html and I have deposited a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS423]
House of Lords
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Death of a Member: Baroness Heyhoe Flint
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death yesterday of the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and her friends.
Immigration: Housing
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Green of Deddington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of new homes that will be required for migrants in England in each year up to 2039 on the basis of the most recent high migration variant of the population projections published by the Office for National Statistics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the higher migration scenario of the department’s household projections shows that there are projected to be an average of 243,000 new households forming each year between 2014 and 2039. Net migration accounts for an estimated 45% of this growth. In the main scenario, there are projected to be an average of 210,000 households forming per year, of which 37% is attributable to net migration.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. These are projections, not forecasts, but does he agree that the difference between projections can give you quite a good idea and that the other projection to look at is the one based on zero net migration? The difference between high and zero migration is 110,000 households being formed every year. That is 300 every day. To put the point slightly more dramatically, that would mean building a home every five minutes, night and day, for new arrivals until such time as we get those numbers down. I know there is a strong view in the House that there is a lot to be said for migration. All I am pointing out is that there are also costs.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I have indicated, just over a third of the growth in the main scenario is attributable to migration. It is a two-year cycle and we review the figures every two years. The next review will be at the end of this year, when some of the scenarios may well change because of the impact of Brexit over the period. But the noble Lord is absolutely right about the challenge of building more houses. That is certainly true, but most of it is not to do with migration.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Would the Minister not agree that, if we are going to be able to build enough houses for British people as well as migrants, we will need labour—and that most of that labour will come from the European Union?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I have indicated, there is a massive challenge. We are in regular contact with BEIS and the Construction Leadership Council, looking at the importance of skills in this regard. The Prime Minister has indicated that, regardless of leaving the European Union, we will still have a need for the best and the brightest in terms of work and apprenticeships. I absolutely agree with the general point that the noble Lord is making about the need for that to continue.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, people will recognise that many immigrants and refugees end up living in some of the poorest parts of our country. Can the Government tell us what steps they are taking to make sure that local councils have sufficient resources to support infrastructure in their communities, and also the special resources that people need when they are trying to acclimatise to a very different environment?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness addresses a broader point. Some of that will be addressed by the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, which I know she is participating in, and some will be addressed in the housing White Paper that is expected shortly. We have of course committed money to infrastructure, which she refers to, but the Controlling Migration Fund also allows money for some of the challenges that local communities face.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an unfortunate perception that migrants take our social housing, as it were, whereas the majority of migrants—over 74% of them, I believe—live in the private rented sector?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness brings up a valuable point. Let us be clear: migration has contributed massively to the quality and diversity of life in this country. It is certainly not true to say that immigration has led to a drain on our resources.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government believe our National Health Service and our social care arrangements can survive—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I have never denied that we need migrants; it is just that we do not want to go on letting in Bulgarian and Romanian gangsters at their will. Do the Government believe our NHS and social care can survive this sort of increase with their present funding arrangements, or do we have to consider something more radical for the longer term?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, if I may try to address the joint question asked by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Foulkes, it is certainly the case that across broad sections of public life, certainly including the NHS, we are heavily dependent on people from the immigrant communities. There is no doubt about that. Net migration will probably fall as a result of Brexit, but it will be some time before that happens. Still, we face all sorts of challenges in seeking to address that.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Will there be enough allotments available for those who want them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, no Question Time is complete without a question on allotments. I know my noble friend feels very strongly about this. Unfortunately, I am blindsided on the particular impact of this issue on allotments, but I will ensure that she has a detailed response and I shall copy it to the Library.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government review the contracts with organisations such as G4S relating to the housing of asylum seekers and refugees? Under the Labour Government, those contracts required more than simply housing; they required an element of support for the tenants of those organisations. That changed under the coalition Government, and that is now imposing considerable pressures on local authorities and communities because there is not that visible support which formerly existed under previous contracts.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue in relation to asylum seekers and housing and services for them. I have experienced this in going around the country and visiting particular communities. I will write to the noble Lord, if I may, on the particular point about G4S, and again I will ensure that that is copied to the Library.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, given what the Minister has said about the continuing need for migrant labour in this country and the dependence, as recognised by the Government, of our health and social services on that labour, is it not time that noble Lords stopped blaming those who are suffering from the housing shortage and actually focused on the remedies for what has been a long-standing problem in this country?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I am not part of that blame culture: I do not do that and I am very committed to ensuring that we address the existing housing shortage. As she will know, we are committed to building 1 million homes in this Parliament and a recent National Audit Office report indicated that we are on target for that. As she and other noble Lords will know, there remains beyond that a massive problem to address, but we are seeking to do just that.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right: there is a housing shortage, whether we focus on immigrants or first-time buyers. Can he assure the House that, in a new housebuilding programme, attention will be paid to last-time buyers as well as other groups in our ageing population?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My noble friend is absolutely right to address that issue and speaks with great experience. She may not be aware that in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill we intend to bring forward amendments to deal with that housing issue in local plans.
Housing: Lettings Fees
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to implement the ban on lettings fees announced in the 2016 Autumn Statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
The Government are committed to introducing legislation as soon as possible to implement the ban on letting agent fees for tenants. We will consult in March/April on the detail of the ban and will consider the views of property agencies, landlords, tenants and other stakeholders before introducing legislation. Impact assessments will follow the consultation and support the detail of banning fees to tenants.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Does the Minister understand our need to see the small print, given the arguments he made against the proposal during the progress of my Private Member’s Bill? Does he recognise that all fees—up-front, renewal and exit—charged to tenants need to be included in the ban for it to work?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness does on this matter. With her background in Shelter, she certainly knows what she is talking about. It is important that we have detailed consultation. I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that officials were in Scotland yesterday to learn lessons from there. I have sympathy with a wide-ranging ban on fees, although we have to be careful to ensure that we get it right through the consultation. For example, if somebody loses their key, it is legitimate that they should pay the letting agent for getting a new one. But I agree with the general thrust of what she says.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister look at some other issues affecting the private rented sector: soaring rents, a rising tide of evictions, and a great lack of security because tenancies can be terminated legally after a very short period? Is that not a matter that the Government should address?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord addresses wider issues. He will probably know that the DCLG working party on affordability and security has reported and we are now considering our response to it, which will cover many of the issues that he just raised.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Are we any closer to having the draft or final regulations under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which we wanted in the pretty early days even before we started discussing it when it was a Bill? We kept being told that we would get them and, as far as I know, we still have not.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My noble friend is perhaps aware that I have written to noble Lords, partly in response to her previous Question, giving a detailed timetable in so far as I have it on when the regulations will be brought into force, but I will circulate it to her again in case it has gone missing.
Mental Health: Children’s Services
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of YoungMinds’ analysis published on 21 December 2016 that 64 per cent of Clinical Commissioning Groups are diverting new funding for children’s mental health services to other areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working with partners in the NHS and elsewhere to deliver an ambitious programme that improves access to high-quality mental health care for children and young people. This is backed by significant additional investment. NHS England’s new five-year forward view for mental health dashboard shows each CCG’s spend and activity on children’s mental health, as part of the robust assurance processes we have put in place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. No one can doubt that Ministers have made all the right noises on developing mental health services for young people. The problem is in the execution. He mentioned extra money, but he will know that the promised £1 billion is simply not getting through to the front line. A recent survey by YoungMinds showed that about 50% of CCGs were simply not using the money that they had been given in their baseline budgets for mental health services for young people. With one in four young people not getting access to services and it being not until 2021 before we stop the appalling practice of young people having residential care hundreds of miles from their homes, there is grave doubt as to whether this will happen in practice. Will the Minister agree to consider ring-fencing this money to ensure that it is actually spent on young people?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue. I have looked at the YoungMinds research, and who could not agree that the money needs to get through to the front line? Its suggestion of maximising transparency is something with which we wholeheartedly agree. We do not think that ring-fencing is the right approach. It is right that we have a health service in which clinical commissioners, who know their local needs best, take decisions. As he knows, we are trying to redress an historic imbalance in both spending and parity of esteem for services. The approach that NHS England is taking about transparency is improving and working. I think that the YoungMinds research shows an improving picture year on year, although there is a lot to do. Indeed, that is confirmed by data from CCGs themselves on mental health spending, which shows an 8.4% increase year-on-year on money getting through to the front line.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, do the Government accept that this is a subject of immense importance? Unless we identify young children with learning difficulties and other problems to do with eating disorders and self-harm, especially in the early years in education, and act quickly and robustly to meet their needs, it will be the beginning of a downward spiral. Society will pay a high cost in terms of both what happens to the individual in the impairment of their development and the costs for society in meeting their needs in their later life.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I could not agree more with the noble Lord. It is significant that the Prime Minister made the announcement on mental health and committed herself to a big improvement in both the amount of funding and the services offered. Part of that is making sure that schools and health work together, with every secondary school in the country being offered mental health and first-aid training, but clearly there is much more to do.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, clearly prevention is better than cure. What is being done by the Department for Education and the Department of Health to work together to educate teachers—in fact all those who come into contact with people in our schools and universities—to notice when a young person might be having a mental health episode?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The sad fact is that the prevalence of mental illness among young people, whether it is self-harm or eating disorders, is growing and there is a real problem. Schools have to play a central role along with health services in addressing it. One of the Prime Minister’s announcements was a major thematic review of children and adolescent mental health services, which is being carried out by both the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted, so that is an important point about joint working. Indeed, the Green Paper that we are committed to producing will be put together by both the Department of Health and the Department for Education. That is a very important statement of intent. Clearly there is a lot of work to do to fill it with good content that will make a difference, but there is absolute determination from the PM downwards to make that happen.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, given the frankly shocking revelation that more than half of clinical commissioning groups are diverting the new money they receive to improve children’s mental health services to other priorities, will the Government commit not to sign off any sustainability and transformation plans that do not contain a clear commitment to spend every penny assigned to mental health for those purposes?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is a great campaigner on these issues, and I have huge respect for the work that she has done. The sustainability and transformation plans will obviously include these local transformation plans for mental health, and it is up to NHS England to ensure that it delivers on the many commitments we now have. Those commitments include the first ever access and waiting times for mental health, which is both access to talking therapies and access to help after psychotic incidents. We have new targets coming up for children and young people who seek help when eating disorders or other generic mental health problems are identified. There are robust targets and there is now a mental health improvement team in NHS England to make sure that those CCGs deliver what they should.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, this is a very serious and growing problem. Recent research has shown over the last five years that the number of hospital admissions associated with children’s self-harm has grown by 93% among girls and 45% among boys. It seems extraordinary that when money is announced for mental health services it is then not spent. First, how many years will we wait until we need to ring-fence that money, because this is a really important issue? Secondly, to pick up on the previous but one question, will the Government commit to producing guidelines for schools and colleges about preventing and responding to self-harm, so that we have some practical things put in place?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I could not agree more with those points, in the sense that money must get through to the front line. However, we have an NHS that is set up so that clinical decisions are made by clinicians rather than politicians, and that must be right, because the needs vary from area to area and different areas have different priorities. They have different historic legacies in terms of delivering their services. As for the direction that we give to schools and colleges, clearly the thematic review that the CQC and Ofsted are carrying out will provide advice on what works. We are also introducing some randomised control trials to look at interventions that work, so we have a proper evidence-based system. The commitment is to get 70,000 more young people having evidence-based treatments by 2021.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not clear that the present system of “hands off” is not working? People working in this service are desperate to make sure that the Government take action to ring-fence this funding so that vulnerable children are not put at risk.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I do not think that anybody disagrees with the scale of the problem that we are dealing with, but I do not believe—and the Government do not believe—that having an NHS in which politicians can direct pots of money is the right approach. These are clinical decisions that need to be made locally. It is not true to say that there is no pressure going on—that is what NHS England is for, to make sure that CCGs are committing not just on mental health but on other health issues to spend the money and meet the targets that they are committed to meeting.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Does the Minister accept that to start looking at mental health issues in secondary school is too late? There is no doubt a shortage in terms of looking at it at primary school level, but it is extremely important. The earlier that children are looked at for their problems, the better.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble and learned Baroness may know that over the past five years I have been setting up primary free schools, with an explicit focus on developing character, well-being and resilience in young people, so I could not agree with her more—it has to start early. Indeed, it does not have to start in primary; it must start in early years and, of course, it must start with parenting and giving parents the skills that they need to teach resilience in their children.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Is the Minister aware that half the immigrant children in the Calais or Dunkirk camps were diagnosed with mental health problems? As we are supposed to accept 20,000 refugees in the next three years, is there sufficient funding and awareness of the need to add to our commitment?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I was not aware of that fact, but it is clearly an important one and I shall write to the noble Lord with the information about what we are doing to support those children who come to this country.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is an issue around identifying people in need of treatment, but there is also an issue about the sustainability of the workforce to deliver that treatment. What are the Government doing to encourage more trainee professionals, both doctors and other kinds of mental health professionals, to pursue a career in relation to mental health, which as I understand it is still fairly unpopular as a specialisation?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That is an extremely good point. The people need to be there in order to deliver. There are two parts to the answer—first, that within the additional £1.4 billion going into children and adolescent mental health services over the course of this Parliament, about £130 million is for workforce development. Secondly, because of our reforms to workforce training, there are another 1,500 doctor training places. By removing the cap on nurse, midwife and allied health professional training, universities will be able to offer up to 10,000 more places a year for those positions.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, might I press the Minister a little further on his very last sentence, when he referred to the increased availability of nursing? I know that he is aware that there is a projected 20% drop in nurse training at this stage but, for specialist nurse training, especially mental health nurse training, the drop is even larger than 20%.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
This is something that we had the opportunity to discuss yesterday. I am aware of the concerns on this issue. The reforms are designed to take the cap off the number of places, making more places available. In the last year, something like 37,000 applicants were turned away from nursing places, which is clearly not something that we want. When there is a change in regime, clearly there may be an impact on numbers in the first year—as there have been when tuition fees have been introduced in the past—but historically that has tended to rebound.
Israel and Palestine: Paris Peace Conference
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why no United Kingdom minister attended the Israel–Palestine peace conference in Paris.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the UK welcomes France’s efforts to promote peace. However, as the role of the US is so critical, we have repeatedly expressed reservations about holding a conference so close to the change of US Administration and without the attendance of the two main parties. We did not consider this the best way to make real progress. As a consequence, we decided to attend the conference as an observer, at senior official level.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
Would the Minister agree that it is important to draw a clear distinction between support for the State of Israel and for the policies of the present Israeli Government? Given that the ministerial absence from this conference followed the crass repudiation of a speech by Senator John Kerry, who had done so much to support the peace efforts, will she confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to recognise that settlements in the West Bank are illegal and, therefore, one of the obstacles to peace?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, this is about more than illegal settlements, although I have made it clear from this Dispatch Box that this Government view illegal settlements as an obstacle to peace. What I affirm, against the background of what the noble Lord has raised, is that the UK’s long-standing position on the Middle East peace process is clear: we continue to support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister to speculate on what the attitude of the British Government would be if the French decided to hold a conference with 70 countries to discuss Northern Ireland but did not invite the British or Irish Governments?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I rather waspishly said, I think, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on Tuesday, I try not to speculate; I prefer to deal with what is. Indeed, in those 13 long, long years in opposition, I remember having my leg pulled very gently on the basis that I always wanted to know what works, and what works is having the two main parties involved in negotiations. Without the Israelis and the Palestinians coming to an agreement, there can be no lasting peace.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government for sticking with their support for the two-state solution, which is generally accepted as the best way forward. But I invite my noble friend to speculate: without the two states of Israel and Palestine at the discussion of the two-state solution, what exactly was the conference designed to achieve?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I do pay tribute to the way in which France has, under various Administrations, genuinely sought to take forward international discussions on a potential peace settlement—this was one more effort by France to do so. But unless the main protagonists are there to come to an agreement, there can be no resolution. That is the nub of the discussion today.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of the Foreign Secretary’s off-the-cuff remarks, I am not at all surprised that the Government were reluctant to send him to France. However, the Minister has today and yesterday reiterated the Government’s support for the two-state solution. Will she reassure the House that, when the Prime Minister visits President-elect Trump—very soon, as we hear—the issue of support for the two-state solution will be high on the agenda?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Indeed, as I have set out today, our position on the two-state solution has not changed. I have again listed the component parts of a lasting settlement, which I know all Members of this House want to achieve—that is, a lasting solution to a very difficult position across the Middle East and one that could be respected by all. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has a wonderfully dramatic way of making a point. It certainly gets attention.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly often emphasises the importance of international law. UNOCHA states that there have been record numbers of demolitions of Palestinian properties in 2016. Will the noble Baroness comment on that?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we continuously bring to the attention of the Government of Israel the fact that we believe that moves to extend illegal settlements, but also moves to carry out demolitions, can undermine the future of peace, even if those demolitions may be in green-line Israel. It is a very sensitive matter because green-line Israel is not the same as the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but, for me, it is a matter of respecting human rights.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that any moves by Governments to move their embassies to Jerusalem would make the two-state solution even more difficult?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we have no plans to move our embassy to Jerusalem. I hope that is in accord with my noble friend’s wishes.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, while respecting the Minister’s earnest endeavours and being grateful to her for those, does she agree that if the Government legitimately are more critical of the Netanyahu illegal settlement policies, that encourages, and gives support to, the millions of Israeli citizens who disapprove of those settlement policies?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, in continuing to voice our opposition to the building of illegal settlements, we also point to other aspects of the disputes that need to be resolved. However, this is set against a wider issue because this country firmly upholds international law. My right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made it clear that, as global Britain going forward as we leave the European Union, we intend to maintain our position as a firm upholder of international law.
Brexit: Hate Crimes
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of concerns raised by the Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, what assessment has been made of the likelihood of increased hate crimes against non-UK EU nationals living in the UK, following the publication of the Supreme Court’s decision on Article 50 and the capacity of relevant authorities to deal with the consequences of any such crimes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we are working very closely with the police and community organisations to monitor any changes in hate crime levels. One of the first things that the Home Secretary did in July last year was to publish a comprehensive new hate crime action plan to drive forward work to tackle hate crime. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both said on numerous occasions that there is no place in the UK for hate crime.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am not sure that that fully addresses my Question. All of us want to maintain good relations with our EU neighbours as we move forward on Brexit. We do not want another spike in hate crime, as we saw following the referendum, or the attacks on judges following the court decision. This week the Prime Minister said that,
“every stray word and every hyped up media report is going to make it harder for us to get the right deal for Britain”.
Did the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, not get the memo? Can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Prime Minister has conveyed the Government’s concern to those sections of the media to which she alluded, as we all agree that such histrionic reports can only damage the interests and the reputation of the UK?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness makes a very valid point in terms of the spike in hate crimes that we saw last year following the referendum on our membership of the EU. Some of the spikes in hate crime that we saw were quite unexpected, particularly as regards the Polish community. I know that the Home Secretary is today meeting consular staff from all the EU embassies. After the referendum last year and the spike in hate crime, we engaged very quickly with the ambassadors, and they now have a single point of contact. The noble Baroness is mouthing “media” to me across the Dispatch Box and I will get to that. The point she makes is very important: we all have a duty to behave in a responsible way. However, it is through society being not just tolerant but welcoming of the various communities who live in our country that we will make progress, and the media are part and parcel of that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on emphasising how important it is that we all behave in a responsible way. But can she think of a single precedent of when Ministers have been asked to answer a hypothetical Question in connection with a hypothetical outcome? Is it not extraordinary that it is in order to ask a Question of this nature?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is hypothetical but I hope I can reassure my noble friend that the Government are prepared and have learned the lessons from some of the events we have seen in the last year. Again, to go back to the noble Baroness’s Question, some of the language has been quite inflammatory, both in the media and from some members of the community following the EU referendum. I think that both as a society and as a Government, we are prepared, and we are engaged consistently and constantly with representatives of the various communities across the country.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the latest crime figures show an increase of about 200 hate crimes a week in 2015-16 compared with the previous year. There has been a 40% increase in hate crime since 2013-14. This is not a spike but a trend and police action is simply addressing the symptoms. What assessment have the Government made of the causes of these increases and do they believe, as we do, that the increase in populism and nationalism is behind these significant and worrying increases?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I heard various tales post-referendum about the various communities—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will get to the point about pre-referendum, because in fact the numbers of hate crimes reported are now down to pre-referendum levels. The reasons behind some of the hate crime were many and varied. The Polish community, for probably the first time in its history in this country, experienced in Hammersmith an unprecedented attack, and the Polish centre in Hammersmith was one of the first centres to benefit from the community demonstration project funding. As I say, the reasons that motivate people to provoke hatred against other people are many and varied, and it is generally based on certain characteristics of those people and those communities, and it has gone down to pre-referendum levels since then.
Lord Ouseley (CB)
My Lords, on 24 June we were all shocked by the level of responses of hate demonstrated by the recorded and reported incidents. I declare an interest in my work as chair of Kick It Out, where we monitor—and have done for the last 23 years—hate incidents that are at the lower level of everyday abuse. There is nothing new about the level of hatred that exists within our society. We have to tackle the issue of prejudice, which we are not doing sufficiently. To blame Brexit as a cause of what we saw on 24 June and since is delusional. Quite frankly, in the context of racial abuse, you cannot blame the levels of homophobic abuse and abuse of disabled people that we are witnessing specifically on Brexit. How are we taking action to effectively tackle prejudice, which is what feeds bigotry and hatred?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord raises a very important point, which is that it was not Brexit per se that was the cause of this hatred but Brexit was used as an occasion to promote prejudice and hatred. The Government have done many things since 2010 to try to tackle this. I mentioned the hate crime action plan that the Home Secretary produced upon becoming Home Secretary. We have made changes to legislation that offer further protection for transgender and disabled people, and those have led to the first convictions for the offence of stirring up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. We have also improved the police recording of hate crime. Forces now capture data on all five of the monitored hate crime strands. We have also recently launched a funding scheme to help protect places of worship from hate crime and to tackle hate crime at a local level.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that drawing the line between hate crime and the protection of free speech is one of the most difficult jobs that the police service has to do? In the event of difficulties following this judgment, will she ask the Home Secretary to support police action, perhaps slightly more quickly than the Lord Chancellor did on the last occasion?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that there is a distinction. How the police operate is of course up to the police, but we certainly support them.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
Is the Minister satisfied with the level of punishment of perpetrators of hate crime and with the provision for education of such people? Is it not clear that, unless and until those guilty of hate crime are taught a lesson in both senses of the term, they are likely to continue with their poisonous attitude?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am satisfied with the level of punishment. The noble Lord raises a point that was mentioned in previous Questions today—that is, education. We engage the Anne Frank Trust in going into schools, which is an incredibly important initiative. It is essential not to forget what happened in the past. We always say that it will never happen again but it does, and for children to have at the forefront of their minds man’s inhumanity to man in the past helps us in the future.
Business of the House
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the first Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Business of the House
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the second Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Brexit: Creative Industries
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clement-Jones
That this House takes note of the impact of Britain’s planned withdrawal from the European Union on the creative industries sector.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce this debate on behalf of my noble friends but I regret the circumstances in which I am doing it.
Last July, when I took part in the two-day debate on the outcome of the European Union referendum, I talked about the implications of Brexit for the creative industries. Uncertainty about the future on the part of both government and those industries was understandable then, but the sad truth is that six months later, despite myriad representations from different parts of the industry, from the Creative Industries Council, the Creative Industries Federation, Arts Council England and many others, and even an extensive speech by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, we are still almost as much in the dark about the implications of Brexit for those industries—and whether the Government have taken on board the concerns of those industries—as we were then. Indeed, it was notable that the Prime Minister mentioned a number of sectors in her speech but not the creative industries.
Therefore, the purpose of those of us on these Benches today is to highlight in no uncertain terms the importance of these industries to our economy and our future, and the essential matters than must be safeguarded on Brexit. Lest we be accused of being miserable remoaners who cannot accept the outcome of the referendum, we also want to set out the opportunities in terms of industrial policy that the Government must grasp in order to make sure that those industries prosper in the future.
Before I go any further, I want to try to give a picture of the importance of these industries, which span such a broad range of creative endeavour. In the UK, we are a vital hub for the TV, design, games, visual effects, publishing, film, advertising, music and fashion industries. They make a contribution of over £87 billion to the UK economy, employ almost 2 million people and are growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. As a result, we are second in the world only to the US for cultural influence or soft power. After all, what other country has instantly recognisable characters such as Harry Potter, James Bond and Sherlock Holmes in quite the way we do? Their exports are worth £20 billion, and the fact is that Europe as a whole is the largest export market for the UK creative industries, accounting for 56% of their trade in the sector. That is not all digital or audio-visual. Europe, with 31% of the total, is the largest market for physical book exports. I could go on. However, I recommend the report from the industry members of the Creative Industries Council, and also the one from the Creative Industries Federation, which give a much better overview than I can in the time available.
The other aspect that is of key importance, but on which I will only touch today, is the relationship of this sector to the tech sector. That relationship and interdependence is becoming more and more important for Britain’s future. Increasingly, tech platforms need creative content, and both sectors rely on creative skills. They are both strongly impacted by government policies on superfast broadband rollout and spectrum allocation, and, of course, by the outcome of Brexit on our telecoms sector, whose consumers have benefited so strongly from an EU-wide regulatory regime. My noble friend Lord Foster will be expanding on this. Both too are going to be strongly affected if there is a change to the way that data can flow freely between the UK and other EU countries. This comes to a head in the games industry, but concerns all creative and tech industries that distribute content or software digitally. Ensuring continuing adequacy of data protection under EU law will therefore be crucial.
It is not always easy to generalise about the creative industries, since they have many individual characteristics. However, some very strong common themes emerge from the work that the creative industries have done so far in responding to the prospect of Brexit. The first and most crucial of these is the need for access to talent. Yes, we need to accelerate the development of our skills here in the UK, and the industries have not been slow in showing how that must be done over the middle and long term by adopting what we might call a full STEAM agenda. However, the fact is that in fast-changing markets, specialist skills are in short supply. The ability for small businesses to hire skilled freelancers is vital. Freedom of movement of people with those skills is crucial; including, for instance, music artists going on tour in Europe or to festivals. This is important also when considering film, games and advertising production, or fashion and publishing here in the UK, particularly when it comes to digital skills. The Prime Minister has promised that the brightest and best can come here, but current changes to the tier 2 visa regime are going in precisely the wrong direction—so much for being truly global. So, too, it is not enough just to recognise the need to guarantee the right of those EU citizens already here to remain in the UK. That is already within the gift of the Government and should be granted immediately.
Another common theme has been about the future of intellectual property enforcement and co-operation. Although the broad principles of IP law are covered by international treaties, the shape of copyright exceptions are largely determined at European level, and so too are the enforcement levers on matters such as breach of copyright and counterfeiting. For instance, European co-operation has been of huge importance to initiatives on infringing online sites, such as Follow the Money. Will this continue? Will we continue to treat historic decisions on IP matters by the ECJ as binding? Will European trademarks no longer have protection in the UK? Will our artists continue to have the benefit of artists’ resale rights? Then there is the community design right, which is so important for the fashion industry, giving much more extensive rights to designers than the UK design right. Will we preserve that?
There are many EU proposals currently afoot which will impact on our creative industries if we do not have a seat at the table to argue their corner. In that context, will the Government be publishing their response to the recent consultation on EU copyright reforms? In the same context of the creation of the EU strategy for a digital single market, will we be able, on the way out of the EU, to protect the territoriality of copyright, which is so important to the financing of our film and television productions, or take advantage of the new transparency rights for creators?
What is the Government’s response to the Arts Council’s suggestion of a review to see how our intellectual property can be enhanced and maintained outside the EU? Will we achieve the right result on the draft directive on online sales for our games industry? In its recent report, the BIS Select Committee said:
“The decision to leave the European Union risks undermining the United Kingdom’s dominance in this policy area. We could have led on the Digital Single Market, but instead we will be having to follow”.
Forty-two per cent of UK digital exports go to the EU. As the Select Committee asked itself, have the Government really started to get to grips with this? Is there any real appreciation in government about the implications of Brexit for the UK’s access to the digital single market?
There are the implications of the loss of funding from Creative Europe, the European Regional Development Fund and Horizon 2020, on which my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter will expand. All the creative industries have real issues about the prospect of lack of access to EU markets but I want in particular to highlight the issues relating to the audio-visual industry—in other words, the film and television sector—which I know the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam will be focusing on later.
The Audiovisual Media Services directive sets out the vital country of origin principle which ensures that our television channels gain access to the EU market without further regulation. As all industry commentators have said, without it there would be significant harm to the industry, especially as the principle could be extended to satellite in future. However, its continuance would have to be negotiated—it cannot simply be preserved by a great European reform Bill—otherwise I can see television channels substantially relocating in order to stay within the AVMS directive. Likewise it is vital that the AVMS directive continues to classify programmes made in countries covered by the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, not purely the European Union, as European works. How alert are the Government to that?
Convinced leavers claim that the world is full of opportunity for trade deals to be done outside the EU but as CETA, the Canadian European Trade Agreement, exemplifies, cultural exceptions are a besetting aspect of trade agreements. What assurance can the Government give about how high up the agenda our creative industries will be in any trade negotiations? These industries need the maximum possible strategic certainty in order to minimise disruption to decision-making, investment and people’s jobs.
We need a commitment to action by the Government on Brexit which supports our creative industries. We need an industrial strategy for the creative industries which incorporates all the above elements. It should also include a raft of domestic action to extend the investment support through tax relief schemes—there is a good case to extend them to music—to build on the strengths of the different regions of the UK and their creative clusters, and on synergies between the creative industries and other sectors of the economy, particularly in the development of skills.
Everything I have outlined is not some special pleading but a hard-headed calculation of what is necessary for the continuing success of the UK creative industries after Brexit. They need to be able to compete in a global environment. We have competition from players operating with larger domestic markets and many up-and-coming agile competitors. Leaving the EU makes us vulnerable without robust action and negotiation, especially if the Prime Minister and Mr Davis envisage that we may leave without any deal at all or with minimal transitional arrangements. The Government need to demonstrate that they grasp these issues and are pursuing a strategy to deliver a trade agenda and an industrial strategy for the creative industries that meets the case.
I look forward to the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on moving this excellent and important debate. The UK creative industries are a tremendous British success story in terms of jobs created, growth, profits and exports. In 2014, the last year for which we have figures, they employed 1.8 million people, many of them in the north of England in the gaming industry. Their job creation has been running at 5% per annum. Over the last few years, their gross value added has grown by more than 4%—twice the rate of growth of the rest of the economy. That is £84 billion and more than 5% of our total economy. Their export achievement is phenomenal. It is £19 billion, with America accounting for 25% of that—our largest single market—at about £5 billion, followed by Germany and France at about £1 billion each.
The major sectors are: advertising and marketing at £13 billion; film, TV and video at £10 billion; IT software and computers at £36 billion; publishing at £10 billion; and music and performing arts at £5 billion. The UK is the third-largest gaming producer in the world after the USA and Japan. That is not going to change because of Brexit and our largest gaming export market is the USA. We apparently employ a lot of EU nationals and since they are highly skilled workers they will obviously qualify under any new type of visa regime we invent.
Of course, we also get EU funding from the Creative Europe stream, which boasts that the UK received the largest grant ever for any EU country. A lot of people have said that funding is vital for the gaming industry. So how much was the funding from Europe? It was £547,000, to be precise. But since 2014 the gaming industry has received £45 million in Treasury tax relief. So what if we leave the EU? The British Government’s support is worth 82 times the EU subsidy.
Then, take our film industry, which is the third-largest film entertainment market in the world after the USA and China, running at about £4.8 billion. It too gets funding from Creative Europe. That amounted to £3.8 million in 2014, but Treasury funding in 2014 was £414 million, or 110 times more. How can anyone make an argument that leaving the EU would deprive the film industry of vital public subsidy? All told, taxpayer support for the creative industries and the arts runs at more than £1 billion, whereas total EU funding through Creative Europe was a mere €40 million.
None of our export markets would dry up after Brexit, whether it is IT and software, accounting for 46% of our exports, or film and TV at 24%, or architecture, or publishing. They will all thrive. Our creative industries are the most innovative and can benefit from the most freedom. They are not making cast-iron widgets based on the technology of the last century, but are in the forefront of trying out exciting new ideas at which British innovators excel.
The House does not need to take my word for it that the creative industries will thrive outside the EU. I have a document issued by the Creative Industries Council called 100 UK Creative Industry Wins in 100 days, on building on the success of the EU referendum. I will not read out all 100 wins, but here are just a dozen that the Creative Industries Council boasts about since 23 June. Australia and New Zealand networks have confirmed that Brexit will not affect their TV orders from UK. The UK and South Africa have co-signed a production treaty. AMC has bought UVI and Odeon cinemas for £921 million. Japan’s SoftBank has bought ARM for £24.3 billion. Gateshead architects have won a major contract in Mongolia. Foster Partners has won a major award in New York. Leach Design has won a contract for Kuwait National Museum. A UK firm has won a stadium project for the 2024 Los Angeles Olympics. The Chinese firm, Huawei, confirmed plans for a £1.3 billion investment in the UK. Google announced London as its European HQ. An Australian TV company chose Cardiff for its new European HQ. Dyson announced a £250 million investment in R&D in the Cotswolds. Apple is to create a spectacular UK HQ at Battersea power station. Disney has chosen Northern Ireland as a production home for TV and Salford’s Media City has had a £1 billion expansion plan approved.
Those were just 12 of the 100 good news announcements up to 1 October last year, since when there has been no slowdown in our creative industries expanding, winning new orders and exporting more, especially now that the pound is down to a more sensible level against the dollar and needs to drop a bit more still if our industry is to survive and export.
Therefore, we should welcome getting out of the EU. Our creative industries do not need an EU comfort blanket. An industry producing £84 billion per annum and exporting £19 billion does not need a paltry €40 million subsidy from the EU. We are better than that, so let us drive forward, maintaining and enhancing our hugely successful creative export market and showing a fraction of the courage demonstrated by the Prime Minister in her wonderful speech on Tuesday.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on securing and introducing this timely debate and thank him for it. I declare an interest both as a former film producer and president of the Film Distributors’ Association. Our screen industries, like the broader creative industries, have been among the great economic success stories of the past two decades, so it becomes imperative that we do everything in our power to minimise any harm that might arise from the Government’s decision to leave the EU single market.
In the short time available, I want to offer—in profound disagreement with the previous speaker—just two examples where reassurance and help are likely to be sorely needed. My first concerns the so-called country of origin principle, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It forms part of the audio-visual media services—the so-called AVMS. It sounds intimidatingly technical but in truth it is very simple and is driven by the fact that internet and satellite TV signals cross national borders. The country of origin principle allows broadcasters to transmit across the entire EU, provided they comply with the rules of the country in which they originate. It is an excellent example of the way in which sensible EU regulation can reduce red tape and not add to it. By common consent, the UK is Europe’s most vibrant broadcasting hub, thanks to our attractive and successful regulatory regime.
According to the Commercial Broadcasters Association, some 1,100 television channels are based here in the UK—around three times as many as in our closest EU rival, France. Of these, up to 55% are non-domestic channels, broadcasting from the UK to other countries, meaning that international channels are key to the UK’s competitive advantage as Europe’s largest broadcasting centre.
Literally thousands of jobs are at stake here. A significant portion of the 12,000 people who work in the multichannel sector are employed at the European or international headquarters of media groups located here in Britain. Indeed, the number of international channels based in this country has been rising by around 17% every year.
The screen sector, supported by the regulator Ofcom, strongly believes that the country of origin principle must continue to operate in the UK after Brexit, so that media companies based here do not face new hurdles or feel compelled to move their operations to other European countries. Not only could that result in a loss of skilled jobs and of significant and hard-won investment; repercussions could be far greater than that. Needless to say, continuing as before will require the agreement of the remaining 27 member states, all of which would love to grab this asset. To retain it will not be easy and will require particularly skilful negotiation.
I want to focus on a vital but rapidly growing subsector of the screen industries, the visual effects and animation business. This relatively new sector has an annual turnover of £2.25 billion and employs in excess of 25,000 people. This all came about because in the late 1960s, a migrant named Stanley Kubrick came to London to make his film “2001: A Space Odyssey”. There was no suitable special effects business for his purposes so he had to invent one. That film’s success attracted the makers of the first “Star Wars” film—and the rest is history.
Over the past few years, as a result of continuing investment in technology, which in turn attracted creative talent from all over the world, we have emerged as the global leaders in a rapidly growing business. In the visual effects category at last year’s Oscars, five of the six nominees, including the eventual winner, were British. We employ the very best talent from around the world, regardless of nationality, and in very large numbers. Of the total workforce in the sector, depending on their grade, between 31% and 35% are EU nationals, and a further 12% are from non-EU countries. In our largest companies, the figures are even starker, ranging between 41% and 45% from the EU alone. Even these percentages increase, topping 50%, when you focus on ultra-high-end jobs in 3D and virtual reality. Are we seriously going to jeopardise a pre-eminence that has taken 50 years to build by requiring up to half the workforce to leave? Of course we are not. So why not dissolve their insecurity and tell them how very welcome and valuable they are to our society and our economy?
Finally, before this debate, like so many others, gets swamped by economic data, here is a flat-out plea to the Minister. As well as the economics, there is a huge moral issue at stake here. Let us be clear: we, Britain, caused this rift. Europe is the injured party. In such a situation surely we should seek to retain a little of the moral high ground by clearly and unequivocally guaranteeing the right to stay to those hundreds of thousands of hard-working, taxpaying, economically active people who add so much to the vibrancy of London in particular and the nation in general. At present we appear to be subjecting them to some form of prisoner exchange programme, treating them as high-stakes bargaining chips. These are people, not chips—people who last June’s unfortunate vote suddenly made vulnerable. As the noble Lord just said, surely as a nation we are better than that. Surely we should immediately and generously embrace them in the hope that Europe will see the good sense of doing likewise, which I suggest it unquestionably will.
In her speech this week the Prime Minister said:
“We will continue to attract the brightest and the best”,
ensuring that immigration continues to bring benefits in addressing skills shortages where they exist. Here is her golden opportunity, without delay, to put her words into action. I beg the Minister, when he replies, to add his voice to what is already a clear majority of the will of this House that we make an unequivocal declaration of the right to stay and remove uncertainty from so many valuable and entirely innocent lives. This we can and must do.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on introducing this important debate. Many years ago, I was a teacher and I very quickly became disillusioned by participating in a system based on the industrial production line model of education. I started to develop ways of catering for the needs of individual pupils, not least to allow them to develop their own creativity. Later, as an MP and my party’s education spokesman, I wrote a book on the importance of developing creativity in education. It was not very good and is now out of print. But my passion for the need to insert the power of creativity into our education system is undimmed, and it helps explain why I am such a passionate supporter of the creative industries.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others have already highlighted the vital importance of the creative industries to our economy and our country’s future. I will not repeat all the statistics, but it is clear that the creative industries are a huge success story, punching above their weight. It is also clear that they have benefited enormously from our membership of the EU. These benefits are put at significant risk by the hard Brexit announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday. Indeed, finding some glimmer of Brexit-related light for the creative industries is hard to come by, although I recommend, at least for a good laugh, “Brexit the Musical”, which I saw last weekend at the excellent Canal Café Theatre. Funny though it was, it intensified my worries about Brexit and Tuesday’s speech by the Prime Minister did little to allay them. It is clear that if the creative industries are so important we must, at the very least, ensure they have a voice at the top table during negotiations.
As Sir John Sorrell says, the creative industries are now,
“a key driver of wealth and global success”,
and imperilling them would, he went on,
“imperil our wider economy. That is why we need to be at the heart of the … government’s industrial strategy and negotiating priorities in coming months”.
Yet there is scant evidence that the Government are taking the creative industries seriously. As Monday’s Evening Standard said, the creative industries do not get much of a look-in—they certainly did not in the Prime Minister’s speech on Tuesday. The Government have promised to push hard for trade deals with the EU on the car industry and on the pharmaceutical and financial sectors. So far, no such promises have been made for the creative sector, and the DCMS Secretary of State is not even on the Government’s main Brexit committee. This does not bode well for the creative industries.
The negotiations will have to cover many matters, not least employment and skills. The creative industries have a higher than average percentage of non-UK EU nationals working for them: 10% of the publishing workforce; 25% in visual effects for film; and as high as 30% in computer gaming. All currently benefit from being able to attract a skilled workforce from the EU, from their variety and diversity and from the collaboration that freedom of movement has enabled. Already, uncertainty over the status of EU workers and the lack of clarity around future immigration policy has made it more difficult for them to attract the talent they need since the Brexit vote. I continue to believe that the best way to resolve the uncertainty is to remain in the single market, but if the Government insist on leaving, they must explain how they will resolve the uncertainty.
As the Creative Industries Federation said after the Prime Minister’s speech,
“the willingness to continue to welcome the ‘brightest and best’ begs the question as to how that will be interpreted in future as the UK updates its outdated immigration system”.
At the very least, we must surely guarantee the status of skilled EU nationals now and in the future. The Prime Minister says that she wants to deliver this, but she must do it quickly. Contrary to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, uncertainty already means that some are leaving, and it is getting harder to attract new talent from other EU countries to fill vacancies and support continued expansion. The Government should follow the clear advice of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
We also have to address homegrown skill shortages. The Prime Minister talked of reforming our schools to achieve this, as if schools had not seen reforms enough already. Instead, she should look at funding and at reforming the curriculum. The Government have failed to protect funding on a per-pupil basis; it is now predicted to fall by 7.5% by 2021. Despite the need for creative subjects for a wide range of careers within and beyond the creative industries, entries for GCSEs in arts and creative subjects have fallen significantly, not least since the Government failed to include them within the EBacc. The EBacc is now interpreted as a signal of what matters and what is best for young people, and creative subjects are not a priority. This is leading to a mismatch between education policy and industry requirements. We surely need to unleash the creativity of pupils. We should learn from the recent writings of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, recognise the importance of digital skills to the creative industries and take action to tackle the huge shortage of such skills.
Some good things are happening. There are changes to the IT curriculum to introduce coding. The BBC’s “Make it Digital” and micro:bit are helping people to get creative with coding, programming and digital technology. Today, on the day it launches its digital marketing strategy with Minister Matt Hancock, I especially welcome the efforts of “Do It Digital”, a not-for-profit, business-facing campaign to share, signpost and celebrate all things that help small businesses get more out of digital.
However, more is needed. With 10 million adults lacking basic digital skills, it is simply not a good enough response for the Government to announce free adult basic digital skills training but then expect it to be,
“funded from the existing Adult Education Budget”.
Without intervention beyond what is currently scoped, it is estimated that there will still be 7.9 million adults without basic digital skills in 2025, and surely—and I hope the Minister agrees—additional action to upskill our workforce must be taken before we introduce measures to cut the supply of skilled people from the rest of the EU.
Without action in this and many other areas raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, the creative industries post-Brexit will be in severe difficulty. Sustaining their current position will be hard enough; expecting further growth will be unrealistic. To ensure that these issues are addressed, the creative industries must be given the priority they deserve during the negotiations and a seat at the top table.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on introducing this important debate about a topic which is complicated because of the many different potential effects involved—and, indeed, on navigating so well through it. I will concentrate my remarks on the principle of free movement as it affects artists and performers as well as small businesses and, in particular, women, and I will end by making a more general point about the possible effect on the regions of the loss of the single market.
First, I shall mention some of the campaigns and comments made by artists before the referendum because they cast light on some of the ground rules under which the arts and creative industries to a certain extent operate and also tackle some of the Brexit statements on their own terms in a way that others at the time did not. Even if not a great deal of notice was taken then, they have resonance now.
Wolfgang Tillmans, the German fine-art photographer resident in Britain, adapted an English poem in his poster campaign by saying, “No man is an island. No country by itself”, and also, “We are the European family”. The Irish sculptor Eva Rothschild asked,
“why would we choose to distance ourselves from our closest neighbours and a whole community with a shared sense of history and identity?”.
The British artist Michael Tierney said:
“One of the biggest and best changes since my childhood has been the ease with which you can now travel between here and countries on the continent. Why on earth would you vote to go backwards?”.
Such statements directly confront the Brexit message of separation and the stated intent of “taking back control”.
The quite opposite interest of artists and creatives in being open to outside influence as a significant means of progressing their work lies at the heart of the principle of cultural exchange and, indeed, has a wider implication for the development of society as a whole. The desire of artists and performers, whatever medium they work in, to travel, study and work abroad at will can be a very important element of their personal development, and the “at will” part is in some ways the most crucial aspect. These artists will often be starting out on their careers and cannot afford to go further than countries in Europe, which is already a huge adventure. Of course, it is also true that we welcome artists from abroad, who often arrive originally as students, as did Wolfgang Tillmans, who went on to win the Turner Prize. It should be remembered how much many of the arts depend on a spirit of co-operation, even though there may be rivalry, too.
In response to the Prime Minister’s speech on Tuesday, the Creative Industries Federation said that,
“the willingness to continue to welcome the ‘brightest and best’ begs the question as to how that will be interpreted in future as the UK updates its outdated immigration system. Such judgments can be difficult to determine not least because, despite many well-paid workers in the creative sector, talent is not always commensurate with salary”.
The Minister may be aware that a number of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, English PEN, the Manifesto Club, the author Kamila Shamsie and I have worked closely with the Home Office over a number of years to improve the visa system in this area, in particular for artists and performers from outside the EU visiting the UK. The Home Office has actually been very helpful and understanding about our concerns, and this led to the permitted paid engagement scheme. Things have improved in certain respects, even if they are by no means perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted. Artists coming to the UK from within the EU were, of course, never part of the discussion, but there is a fear that our work will take a step backwards. I very much hope that this will not be the case.
These concerns are also true for larger organisations and for the feasibility of future touring by British orchestras, theatre companies and dance troupes around Europe. The Incorporated Society of Musicians reports that in one survey, over half of musicians placed maintaining free movement as their number one priority for the music profession in negotiations relating to the UK leaving the EU. Opera and ballet companies, for instance, are able to call on singers and dancers from abroad at a moment’s notice to fill a gap if necessary, and of course that is true the other way round. But without the flexibility in terms of this last-minute decision-making that the single market allows, it is the arts, probably before any other sector, that will suffer the most if constraints are placed on movement. Can the Minister address these important concerns in his reply?
There are similar issues with small businesses. One particular thing that needs to be said, which I am not sure has been said yet, is how leaving the single market—if that happens—may have an inordinate effect on women, in particular those who run small businesses and also bear the brunt of juggling childcare, work and caring for elderly relatives. They may be able, just, to travel to Europe to do business, but anything over a two-hour flight throws enormous spanners in the works, both in terms of time and of cost. My wife runs a small media company. Before now she has, for example, gone to Copenhagen to work for a morning and has been able to get back in time—perhaps amazingly—for school pick-up. Of course, many women are not able even to do that, unless they are a City-based businesswoman—or indeed businessman—with 24-hour wraparound childcare. Trade with Europe cannot be replaced by trade with Australia or South America unless someone invents time travel. Shutting out interaction with our closest neighbours in favour of those further away would be an absurdity and an economic liability.
We should be immensely grateful for the significant support that the EU has given us over the years. The arts themselves in the UK are now fighting on more than one front, not least, in the regions, against local council funding cuts. This same policy of austerity, combined across every sector, was a contributing factor in the result of the referendum itself. Ultimately, for the arts and creative industries, particularly outside London, the concern will be that it will be the car industry and the financial sector which will be protected. Indeed, the Prime Minister hinted as much in her speech. But if this happens, the effect will surely be to skew an already distorted Britain—the one so many of those who voted for Brexit were protesting against—even further against the regions.
It seems to me that when rights and freedoms are removed—and we will lose rights and freedoms, even if, ironically, that removal is self-imposed—it will be the already disadvantaged who will suffer most. If the single market is removed—which, as others have pointed out, would break a clear manifesto commitment—and the worst fears are realised, it will be the regions that will suffer; less so London, which will no doubt to an extent have the power and nous to find a way around the system.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this important debate. I will talk briefly about museums, art galleries and commercial art galleries. Some have argued that these are not part of the creative industries, but surely exhibitions that bring together installations of art, music, video and photography have to be regarded as creative.
Museums and galleries play a central part in the cultural and creative life of our country and of our cities in particular. The role of culture and creativity in the social and economic future of our cities should be recognised and supported across government. For our cities throughout the UK to be truly successful, competitive and sustainable, they must be more than just hubs of commerce. Culture and creative industries are able to attract highly paid jobs and tourism to our cities. As businesses and the workplace become increasingly flexible and mobile, culture has a vital role to play in the appeal of a city for both employers and, critically, employees.
Culture can also support regeneration and development plans, as seen in areas such as London, Manchester and Dundee. Making this a reality across the country will require all parts of both the public and private sectors to recognise the value that culture and creativity play in the cities of the future. They operate in a global marketplace for creative, cultural and research talent. We have museum curators from Europe and further afield, and many of our museum and gallery employees have studied in Europe and in other parts of the world.
The museum sector is well placed to project an image of the country that is open, progressive and positively engaged. There is a real opportunity for museums and galleries to shape global perceptions of the country and, in doing so, help to encourage inbound tourism, trade and investment, as well as supporting the retention of global business. London’s unique collection of world-class museums is an essential part of its appeal to mobile and flexible global companies and employers who are choosing it as a place to work and live, against competition from other comparable global cities.
Of course there are uncertain times ahead for museums and art galleries. Leaving the EU could effectively remove the UK from the European loan circuit. The loan system as it stands has academic, social, economic and political advantages. Among many concerns are that costs will go up, and funding down. The Government must take note of the possible impact on UK museums and galleries. The laws in place at present are interrelated, and these will need to be in place when we leave to regulate such issues as the licensing and movement of cultural property, which at present is in EU law.
It is vital that museums continue to tour in Europe and bring objects, both ancient and modern, in and out of the country, enhancing the UK’s reputation abroad and all that they offer to people here in the UK. Now it is more important than ever that they continue to look and reach outwards and work with organisations in Europe and beyond, cementing the partnerships that have been built up. There is no doubt that our arts, creative and cultural organisations are in demand as partners, providers and destinations. As I have said, our creative and cultural strength is one of the UK’s trademarks globally.
Our departure from the EU will strip the UK of a layer of funding, but it need not mean that there should also be an end to culture collaboration. There may be uncertainty on the future of funding and free movement, but our creativity, museums and galleries remain vibrant. We are world leaders in culture and the arts. Innovative, challenging and exciting arts and culture are here to stay. They benefit the economy and attract tourists from all over the world.
The British Museum has a first-rate international programme that supports the UK’s soft-power capabilities, building networks and relationships throughout the world. The museum’s arm’s-length status enables it to continue to engage with countries such as Russia and Iran during moments of diplomatic difficulty, maintaining people-to-people contact. The museum also regularly receives ministerial and state visits, which emphasise its importance as one of the world’s leading attractions and a symbol of the UK’s openness to the world. Of course not all museums can operate on that scale, but it is important that museums and the cultural sector as a whole continue to engage and build networks, through research, exhibitions and collaboration with partners around the world, including throughout Europe.
The National Museum Directors’ Council stressed that EU funds provide structure and scale that individual member states cannot possibly replicate, and that private funding cannot replace public funding. Regional museums and galleries have always been under pressure and are particularly vulnerable. They need to rethink their way forward, sharing experience, expertise, resources, collections and skills. There must be collaboration with community organisations and connection with their local community. Could this be the time to consider a national strategy for museums and galleries? I would be interested to know how the Minister might feel about that.
I want to spend a couple of minutes on commercial galleries. The art market here in the UK is the second largest in the world, attracting high-spending individuals to buy and sell here, as well as setting up businesses and homes. They encourage and promote many of our artists in all areas of creativity. Commercial art galleries are small businesses and, as such, are no different from other businesses trading their wares in Europe and further afield. I hope that the Government’s industrial strategy will champion them in the same way that it does other businesses.
Anthony Browne, chairman of the British Art Market Federation, pointed out recently that all is not gloom and doom. The freer the trade, the more successful our art market can be. The Brexit vote could give London a competitive advantage over rivals in New York, Switzerland and Hong Kong. However, there is a caveat. Following Brexit, there is anxiety about freedom of movement and cross-border licensing, as well as favourable fiscal advantages to encourage a global market.
I am optimistic about the future of our museums and galleries. Let us remember that through the use of collections, public programmes and community engagement work, museums can connect diverse communities and provide safe civic spaces to help us consider and address the changing nature of our society and our relationships with the world. Exhibitions such as the British Museum’s “Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam” and the Sikh Fortress Turban touring exhibition, or the forthcoming South Asia partnership gallery in Manchester, demonstrate how collections can be used to engage with local communities and increase levels of understanding and tolerance.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s speech, in which I am sure there will be support for museums and galleries in this country.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate, especially because I, too, heard nothing about the creative industries in the Prime Minister’s speech on Tuesday. As Rohan Silva, a former No. 10 adviser turned tech entrepreneur, reminded us recently, the Government have promised that they will push hard for special trade deals with the EU on financial services, pharmaceuticals and the car industry. Construction and global banking have also been reassured that they will continue to be able to access the global talent they need. But the creative industries, this unique melange of large and small businesses encompassing, as we have heard, music, fashion, television production, software development, performing arts and gaming to books—where I declare an interest as a publisher—have been given no such reassurances.
Is that because they consist of more than a quarter of a million businesses and, despite being the fastest growing sector of our economy and the source, as we have heard, of our soft power in the world, we rarely hear of their needs, as they do not employ the lobbying rights of other industries? We need to remember that the creative industries are our calling card to the world, vital to our future growth and competitiveness, alongside their role in social inclusion, connecting communities and bringing people from all walks of life together in creative empathy, engagement and experiences.
Adele is the world’s bestselling musical performer. The fashion label Burberry exports to the world. As we have heard, three of the highest grossing global film franchises of all time—Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and James Bond—were based on British books, but any film also highlights acting, producing and directing talents, and all the behind-the-scenes crafts, from costumes to special effects, that make the UK such a special creative hub. This importance can also be seen both in the West End and on Broadway, where hits such as “Matilda” and “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time” were based on British novels. The Golden Globes also highlighted our creativity, from John Le Carré’s The Night Manager to Claire Foy’s portrayal of the Queen.
All of those industries share four key concerns in the light of our exit from the European Union. The first, as we have heard, is access to talent and skills. The Prime Minister has said that she wants us to be a magnet for international talent, yet whether you are a touring musical festival or a start-up app developer, you will share with other creative industries a skills shortage for a variety of jobs from design engineers to animation specialists, video game programmers to skilled musicians. Having an immigration process that sets an arbitrary salary threshold ignores the challenges involved for developing artists, when their initial income is not always equal to their talent, as we heard from the noble Earl. Although I welcome the news that EU workers already living in Britain will, we hope, have the right to continue to work here, what of the needs of the creative industries after Brexit?
Publishing has a particular interest, given that more than 10% of its workforce comes from Europe, contributing to both the generation of ideas and the simple language skills needed to sell our books to the rest of the world. As we have heard, at least a quarter of the specialists in visual effects are from the EU. Similarly, the gaming industry draws more than 25% of its staff from the EU.
The diversity of the workforce helps to inspire innovation and knowledge of other consumer markets, and helps our exports. Rather than impose limits, should we not be making it easier to recruit the right people, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam has argued?
The second concern is EU funding and access to grants such as Creative Europe which, in my industry, helps fund the translation of literary works. The UK receives some of the highest European cultural investments that fuel both our creative industries and help to regenerate our cities from Glasgow to Plymouth—and Liverpool, which in 2008 increased tourism by one-third as a European capital of culture. The UK is the second highest recipient of EU research, development and innovation funding, receiving a total of £8.8bn between 2007 and 2013—£3 billion more than we put in. I ask the Minister: how will those funds be replaced?
The third concern is the regulatory framework—copyright protection, trademarks, intellectual property rights and the single digital market. Copyright is vital for the creative industries. In publishing it is the mechanism by which publishers and authors can turn their creative endeavour into financial reward. We need to retain a stable framework to ensure continued investment with digitisation opening up global markets. We need a seat at the table to influence policy, such as protecting IP from online piracy.
Finally, there are our trading relationships and co-investments. In book publishing, any tariffs will be a real disincentive to the 35% of our exports to the EU. That we are aiming for tariff-free trade is hugely welcome but we need to ensure that there will be no non-tariff barriers too, with all the related delays and extra costs. We also need to consider the power of our audio-visual industry, as we have already heard, European creative collaborations and co-investments, and to continue to be able to qualify for European media slots at the same time as protecting territoriality of IP rights.
There is one other key issue for the creative industries, which is the central importance of the intellectual and research independence of our higher education sector. The Royal College of Art, in which I declare an interest, has been rated No. 1 in art and design in the world for two years, since the league tables were established. It sits at the heart of Albertopolis in London, flanked by Imperial College and the V&A. It launches more new businesses than any other university according to HEFCE, yet only science and innovation were mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech, not the innovation that comes from STEAM—adding art and design to science, technology, engineering and maths. This is the space where some of the most exciting new businesses are born.
Will EU students still choose our universities if their fee structure changes or, as I heard one Minister say, will they be replaced by international students from outside the EU? I think not if our post-study work visa system remains so inflexible. The Economic and Social Research Council research centre on micro-social change reports that graduates from the EU are the highest achievers in UK universities and a tremendous resource to the workforce. What effect will a reduction of EU students have on our creative economy?
Our universities, writers, musicians, actors, producers, directors and designers all draw from a rich and diversified cultural heritage. That is how new ideas are produced that fuel our fastest growing sector. We need to be sure that the diverse needs of this sector are truly recognised and that everything possible is done to preserve and grow its vibrancy, contribution and its global impact.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, my first duty is to declare several interests. My wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and son-in-law are all involved in the creative industries in Wales. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for facilitating this debate and reiterate my unwavering commitment to European unity as a background to it.
The numbers employed in the creative industries in Wales has doubled over recent years. It is a vital part of our economy. Fears about the impact of Brexit have been well expressed by the Arts Council of Wales. The arts in Wales have a long-standing tradition of working internationally and this is particularly true of our links within Europe. They have benefited us both socially and culturally, as well as bringing very substantial European funding to support cultural activities in Wales. Over the past two decades the international arm of the Arts Council, Wales Arts International, has organised and participated in European cultural partnerships and exchanges. Any diminution of these would be a highly retrograde step.
I turn first to the question of funding. Many of the major UK orchestras, including the Welsh National Opera, are funded partly through European money. Will there be any guarantees that such important cultural ambassadors do not lose out financially as a result of Brexit? The current EU structural fund programme, over the period 2014-20, provides almost £60 million to third sector organisations in Wales, of which arts-related projects are a major component. These are focused on economically deprived communities. Creative Europe, which has already been mentioned—the EU programme that supports the cultural, creative and audio-visual sectors in Europe—is committed to investing almost €1.5 billion in creative industries between 2014 and 2020. During the first two years of the programme, it supported 230 cultural organisations and audio-visual companies in the UK, and assisted the cinema distribution of 84 UK films within other EU countries, with grants totalling £40 million. The creative industries are worth £87 billion to the UK economy and have been growing at about 9%, twice the rate of the overall economy.
The EU is Britain’s largest export market, taking 57% of our creative industry exports. Over the past five years, the Arts Council has invested heavily in opening up new European markets for Welsh artists and arts organisations in a wide range of cultural activity, whose livelihoods depend on such work and whose creativity has undoubtedly benefited from opening up such new horizons. The Welsh television series “Y Gwyll”, televised in English as “Hinterland”, was supported by €0.5 million from the EU’s media fund, which made it viable by increasing its non-recoverable finance from 57% to 67%. It has now sold to 180 countries. Without EU support, it would not have gone ahead. Creative Europe has non-EU countries such as Norway, Serbia and Iceland as fully participating nations. Can we therefore expect the Government to make a specific objective of negotiating to maintain the UK’s eligibility to participate fully in Creative Europe?
I understand that until 2020 the UK will be eligible to benefit from EU programmes, including Horizon 2020, Interreg, Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens and Creative Europe. After that, we are in a whole new world, with total uncertainty. It is incumbent on the Government to make it clear at the earliest possible opportunity how they intend to maintain or replace both for the UK as a whole and specifically for the devolved nations the sources of financial support currently provided by the EU, by funding from within the UK. If the Government feel that they are honour bound to carry out the outcome of the referendum, they have to honour the pledges given to deliver that outcome—no ifs, no buts—and deliver them in full.
I now want to address some practical problems. There can be no doubt whatever that, if barriers are erected which militate against the free movement of people, and indeed of cultural equipment, such as instruments, that will represent a huge backward step for practitioners in many aspects of the arts. I remember, back at university in the early 1960s, how one summer vacation, a group of seven or eight musicians with a dozen or so instruments went on a European tour. They had to secure in advance individual papers to allow them to work in each country, and entry documents for each of their instruments, and these had to be cleared at the borders of almost every country as they made their road journey around our continent. Heaven forbid that we go back to such a situation.
My daughter-in-law, international harpist Catrin Finch, has outlined to me her great fears at the adverse effects of Brexit on her performing colleagues. She tells me that for many musicians wishing to perform in the United States or other non-EU countries, the visa prices may be too high to make concerts worth while. There are disincentives by way of the time-consuming paperwork, which render tours impractical. If the EU was subject to similar restrictions, it would be a body-blow to artists and larger companies. Catrin also warns of the effect of Brexit on young musicians studying within Europe. At present, there are great cultural links with musical conservatoires around Europe. Many young musicians take advantage of the opportunities given to study in other countries as part of their course. This is a two-way process. Many of the students studying at the Royal Academy of Music and other colleges are from EU countries. Will such opportunities still be available after Brexit?
In its report to the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee of the National Assembly last October, the Arts Council of Wales included evidence from Wales Arts International which warned of three specific dangers arising from Brexit. It was concerned about, in terms of employment, whether the UK would be able to attract and retain talent from around the world to underpin their high reputations; a reduced likelihood of bringing artists to perform in the UK; and the additional costs faced by those from the UK performing in continental Europe. There is also the general point about the cultural enrichment that comes from such mixing across our continent. People from Britain learn so much from the wonderful arts organisations right across Europe.
Many of the points which I have outlined were highlighted by the Creative Industries Federation in October. It warned of the dangers of creative organisations in the UK being unable to recruit and keep key staff, of the increased administration costs both for those wishing to perform in continental Europe and for venues wishing to use EU-based performers, and of the dangers of losing protection for original designs. In its response to the Prime Minister’s statement this week, it has emphasised the need for a sector-by-sector approach, which I endorse. In that context, if the Government are hell-bent on the hardest of hard Brexits, they should aim at securing for those involved in the arts and creative industries a specific free-movement provision, which avoids all the bureaucracy, paperwork, and complexities which they may well otherwise face. This clearly must be reciprocated for those from EU countries coming to the UK.
I have not gone into the negative impact of Brexit on our universities, which is the subject of another day’s debate. Needless to say, our communities and our universities will suffer a major blow, as indeed will our creative industries. There are clearly major threats to the creative sector arising from Brexit and I appeal to the Government to take on board all the worries outlined in today’s debate and to bring forward a paper outlining the way in which they hope to address these issues in the context of their Brexit negotiations.
Lord Suri (Con)
The noble Lord, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the creative industries has been working hard on this issue, as has the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for which I thank them. This is an extremely important debate, because post-Brexit Britain must play to its strengths to keep the economy growing at a decent rate. The creative industries are certainly in that category—growing three times as fast as the national average and generating £10 million an hour.
On the topic of social media, I have been heartened to see that Facebook is expanding and hiring at its London headquarters, which it describes as a global hub. Also, two weeks ago, Snapchat decided to base its European headquarters here, which proves the tremendous advantage we have in this city of cutting-edge media expertise and flexible labour markets. The type of Brexit that the Prime Minister outlined on Tuesday will not sink the creative industries, but it does threaten to impair them in some ways if not managed and mitigated. One very real threat is the removal of EU funding through the MEDIA programme, which goes to studios, the Creative Europe programme, which funds theatres, and the various funds that have helped to open museums like the Imperial War Museum North.
As I have said before in this House, one of the great shames of the leave campaign was the assumption that we would have £350 million a week to spend on the NHS when so much of our contribution flows back through various avenues. The Prime Minister was clear that a hard Brexit is her aim; Ministers will have to decide where to put this cash that we would otherwise have spent on EU membership. I urge them to step up and guarantee that EU arts funding will be met in the future. The Chancellor has confirmed this until 2020, but I urge all relevant Ministers to give longer-term assurances, so that investors and firms can move forward on a stable basis and lose the fog of uncertainty that is hanging over day-to-day spending decisions.
Even if the decisions made are not what the creative industries might like to hear, there will at least be some certainty, although they should note that many production houses now view EU funding and continued access to similar public funds as part of their basic model. The sharp rise in the pound on Tuesday is clear evidence that businesses want to hear news, even if it is bad news, so they can have the stability they crave and plan for the future.
I am also concerned about immigration and free movement. The Prime Minister stated clearly in her Lancaster House speech that,
“we will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the EU”.
That is a sensible policy given the frustration many leave voters felt about immigration, but where will it leave the creative arts? Some UK dance companies source 80% of their staff from overseas, primarily European countries. Clamping down on soft targets such as travelling performers could cut numbers but would leave us culturally and financially poorer. I urge the Government to add more creative professions to the list of shortage professions, as these are not people whom we wish to ward off. The creative arts, along with agriculture and construction, are some of the industries most dependent on foreign labour, but creative industry workers tend to be very highly skilled and productive for the real economy. Take the current boom in West End tickets for theatre, opera and ballet following the drop in the pound. If a director has to source visas for up to 50% of their production, the cost and delay involved—as well as the possibility that they may not get the visas in any case—might drive them away. Tourists who are unable to see the shows they want to see may go to Paris or Vienna instead.
This country has always welcomed people who can plug gaps and who boost, not drain, public services. Creative professionals are the archetype of that category. I do not believe that the public voted for less cultural exchange with Europe. In her speech, the Prime Minister also said:
“Britain’s history and culture is profoundly internationalist. We are a European country—and proud of our shared European heritage”.
I agree with the sentiment expressed. We should pursue an internationalist vision while maintaining our strong cultural links to Europe, or risk becoming Little Britain.
This speech may sound gloomy but there are opportunities to grasp, too. Greater cultural exchange with some nations with which we may have interacted less during our period of EU membership is a definite bonus, and a weaker pound will help promote tourism to see Britain’s cultural offerings. However, the risks are significant and the industry stands to lose heavily if the wrong kind of deal is made and subsequent attitude taken. I am confident that the Government will view these issues with the importance they deserve.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords I too congratulate my noble friend on securing this timely debate. I declare an interest as per the register.
I want to concentrate on the potential impact of Brexit on our talented children’s and animation production sector, and why this sector should be at the heart of the Government’s negotiations and post-Brexit planning. As we have heard, the creative industries overall are responsible for 8% of total UK gross value. The children’s production sector has played its part in this major contribution, selling the UK brand with global successes such as “Peppa Pig”, “Art Attack”, “Horrible Histories” and many, many more.
Children’s content production can be digital, interactive and delivered in some of the most creative and original styles imaginable, responding to the way children consume content in today’s world. This has been made possible because children’s content and animation producers have long been used to working both in Europe with European partners and beyond Europe. Both are also important export markets for the UK. Therefore, a fundamentally important issue that needs to be considered is freedom of movement. This is vital for the sector in the long term, as it allows short-term opportunities for creators to work on productions around Europe. Around 6% of jobs in the creative industries are filled by European migrants, many in the animation sector, where skills gaps are often identified and filled with European workers. Any additional burdens could harm the sector and content for the consumer, and increase costs for businesses.
The production sector in the UK has developed into a world-class sector precisely because it has been open to talent from both Europe and around the world. Importantly, this allows UK staff to learn and develop their skills with the best of global talent. There is also a case to be made for the importance of the children’s production sector for training and diversity. Countless times we see young talent, on and off screen, developing their skills and forging their careers from a positive start in children’s production.
All this is why the creative industries are calling for the Government to continue investment in the Creative Europe funding scheme. In its first two years, Creative Europe has provided some £40 million in grants, supporting some 230 different UK cultural and creative organisations. This funding is invaluable, particularly to children’s and animation producers, who work to tight budgets, and for whom completing the funding jigsaw is always a challenge, as broadcasters hardly ever fully fund productions.
No UK PSB provides 100% funding for animation; dramas do not always receive 100% funding, relying on co-production. Usually, only specialist UK-produced programmes are fully funded. That is why there is strong agreement throughout the creative industries that the Government should continue to pay into the Creative Europe scheme, as other non-EU countries do, given the clear benefits to the sector. The sector truly welcomes the Government’s recent commitment to honour funding for projects that have already been given the go-ahead. However, the production sector calls for equivalent levels of funding to support production and creative clusters around the UK if we do not continue our commitment to Creative Europe. Can the Minister say whether the Government will commit to this?
Children’s and animation producers are well placed to contribute to growth in exports by building on existing relationships, especially with co-productions within Europe and beyond. However, in recent years, government export support has been inconsistent and has sometimes been removed at short notice for some countries, particularly emerging markets. Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that the Government will work more closely with independent producers and the creative industries to ensure they get the sustainable support they require to secure the best business deals?
The children’s production sector is already under immense pressure, overall spend on children’s programming has declined by almost half since 2002, and spending by commercial public service broadcasters has fallen by 93%. This is all cause for concern because the cultural and development value of content for children and young people is crucial for their development. It is vital that they see themselves and their lives reflected on screen and in society. Our children’s production sector tries to do just that despite all the challenges it faces. But how much more it can endure, only time will tell.
The market for producing children’s programming is shrinking rapidly, while the demand for quality children’s programmes remains vigorous. Therefore, the loss of the Creative Europe fund would be yet another blow and would represent a significant commercial loss to the UK, as well as being incredibly detrimental to our country’s soft power. The government tax breaks given to the children’s programming production sector were most welcome, but ultimately, without the market demand, they do not make the pot bigger or ensure that investment levels are sustainable. Loss of Creative Europe funding would compound the sector’s struggles.
Our children did not have a vote in the referendum, nor did they have a voice in any of the Brexit negotiations. But creative content that is likely to be produced for them, to influence their imagination and thinking, their emotional, mental and inspirational well-being, is at stake here. This is why we must not let them down when we decide on plans for their future viewing, as we move forward. Remember: childhood lasts a lifetime, and children deserve high-quality content that will stay with them for ever.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this important debate today.
What do the following British creative people: Charles Dickens, the Beatles, JK Rowling and Charlie Chaplin, all have in common? The answer is that they were all artistic failures—at least at first. Dickens left school early, had no formal education, and seemed destined for a life working in a grimy Victorian shoe factory. The Beatles were rejected by a record company, which said “We don’t like your sound, and guitar music is on the way out”; JK Rowling was unemployed, divorced, and raising her daughter on social security; and Chaplin was shown the exit door by unimpressed film executives who thought his comedy was too obscure for anyone to find funny. Yet each of these artists persevered and became an iconic example of what has become great about Britain’s creative industries, which are respected throughout the world.
However, to build upon this great legacy, we first need to refresh the education and training system to provide young people with the skills needed for great jobs in the creative sector. I had the privilege for five years to be the chancellor of Bournemouth University, which is a centre of excellence for business, especially film production. A number of its graduates have used their technical skills to make the “Lord of the Rings” films, which were such a visual success. But there is still a national shortage of skills in film animation and visual effects.
Secondly, Brexit provides the Government with the opportunity to create a visa system fit for the 21st century. The visa system should enable access to world-class talent to keep the British creative industries at the top. One of my daughters is a student at the London College of Fashion, and the international students there face a steep barrier in terms of the cost and complexity of obtaining tier 2 visas to study.
There needs to be an audit of existing EU funding to the UK creative sector, to identify old streams that should be replaced by the UK Government when the EU funding ends. There must also be ongoing protection of intellectual property rights, including copyright in the new trade deals. Other issues which need to be addressed will be the increased cost and administration for British artists touring the EU, and for British venues wanting to showcase non-UK EU nationals. There is also likely to be an impact on the finances and standing of British higher education because of the possible reduction in the number of EU students and academics. There are concerns too about the loss of rights protecting original designs, which could affect trade showcases such as London Fashion Week. There is also a question mark over whether the UK will proceed with hosting the European City of Culture in 2023.
According to the British Film Institute, the film industry is worth over £6 billion per year. For 10 years I was vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification, which has jurisdiction over cinema film, videos and computer games, and I can definitely say that during those 10 years the films that I found the most creative and groundbreaking were British-origin films, such as “In The Name of The Father”, “The English Patient”, “The Remains of The Day” and of course “Chariots of Fire”, produced by David Puttnam, now the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Then there are British actors who have conquered Hollywood, such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Idris Elba and Anthony Hopkins. But, moving forward, there is concern about the potential loss of funding for the film industry from the EU’s Creative Europe programme.
The UK music industry’s contribution to the UK economy is about £4.1 billion. British artists from Adele and Coldplay to One Direction sell out arenas all over the world. I spent some very happy years as a presenter for BBC Radio 2 playing music, which is very much part of the fabric of daily life for millions of the station’s listeners. I remember how delighted I was when I got my first big break there as a young presenter. I was given the four o’clock slot—all right, it turned out to be 4 am, not 4 pm, but it was a start and led eventually to more prominent slots in the afternoon and evening. Recently I have enjoyed hosting music shows for a London radio station, where they refer to me warmly as “The Soul Baron”. Again, it has reminded me that the music industry has an important role to play in British business and civic life.
The UK music business derives more than half its revenue from exports—to the tune of £2.2 billion. Its future is dependent on securing favourable trade conditions with overseas markets, so I would like the Government to at least think about the following. There are currently 21 trade envoys for the UK Government but none for America, India or China, which are huge markets. Perhaps the Government could think about creating trade envoys for those very important markets. They may also like to think about revitalising the city twinning system to link creative industries across countries and continents. We need to think afresh because of the opportunities that Brexit gives us.
The Government need to continue their dialogue with the Creative Industries Council and to listen to groups such as the Creative Industries Federation, the Publishers Association, the British film industry, the British Fashion Council, UK Music, the Commercial Broadcasters Association and the Arts Council.
We are on the eve of the inauguration of a new American President. I recently had the privilege of being interviewed on Fox News in America on the topic of Brexit. America is listening to Britain and watching how we embrace this European exit. Brexit may be a bumpy ride but it will provide positive opportunities for the creative industries in the long run. As the economist John Maynard Keynes once said, the difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for this timely opportunity to discuss the impact of Brexit on the creative industries.
As might be anticipated in sectors such as film and television, both of which are active in production and distribution internationally, the reaction to the EU referendum result was largely negative. A poll of PACT members showed that 85% were opposed to Brexit, and 59% of the members of the Independent Film & Television Alliance said that it would be “bad for business”. Its chairman said that the impact of Brexit was likely to be “devastating for us”.
Among the professional concerns of media executives were loss of membership of the European Commission’s framework programme for support for the culture and audio-visual industries, Creative Europe, as we have heard; exclusion from EU quotas; work permit and visa problems for cast and crews; and the loss of a seat at the table where EU members decide digital single market strategies. There are many more such concerns, as we have heard in this excellent debate.
Among the immediate impacts of the Brexit vote were falls in the share prices of media companies such as ITV and the trending downwards of television advertising revenues. However, the chief executive of ITV, Adam Crozier, identified the crucial factor in these falls as the uncertainty surrounding our exit from the European Union. This week, the Prime Minister dispelled some uncertainty but, sadly, not that for the creative industries.
However, as the months have passed, more emphasis is now being given to exploring how to make the most of Brexit, as we have heard today. Our creative industries must lobby hard to maintain or even expand our pan-European links, and my remarks relate mainly to film and television. As noble Lords have said, the Creative Europe programme is open to non-member states, ranging at present from Iceland and Norway in the north to Albania and Montenegro in the south as full members. The key point is that the programme is open to non-EU members, provided that they “pay additional appropriations”.
Over its first two years, financial support for creative projects in the UK totalled €40 million. The Creative Europe Desk UK says that UK participation can continue beyond Brexit. Given that background, it should not be too hard to negotiate arrangements that keep the UK in Creative Europe but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, vital though it is to many worthwhile cultural activities, in the great scheme of things the EU money involved does not add up to much in the context of rapid growth across the full range of British creative industries. Therefore, the UK Government could easily afford to fund a replacement programme if necessary.
It has been previously stated but is worth repeating that, measured by their gross value added, the creative industries account for £84 billion, or 5.2% of the UK economy. As has been argued, that should give the creative sector a potentially powerful role in shaping post-Brexit arrangements as a matter of some urgency. For instance, our creative and financial relationships with the United States go back to the beginning of film, then of television, and of course, later, to popular music, and these relationships may be stronger now than ever before. If President Trump wants an early trade deal with the UK, the creative industries should pull together their proposals and get working in collaboration with the Government, if they put their promises into practice. The DCMS Minister of State, Matt Hancock, has said that the creative industries,
“will be absolutely central to our post-Brexit future”,
and that Britain was at its best when,
“progressive and positively engaged in the world”,
adding:
“The creative industries are critical to securing that status”.
Those are encouraging words but the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, my noble friend Lord Puttnam and others demand a more detailed response very soon—perhaps this afternoon from the Minister.
We can also anticipate more detail on Brexit impacts and our options from the conclusions of the current inquiry of the Commons DCMS Committee, some of which may be positive, but at present it is not a long list. A fall in the value of the pound long term could boost the attraction of the UK as a production base. The increased cost of buying in non-British productions through the fall in the pound might even give us a marginal boost through their replacement in the schedules by domestic programming. Matt Hancock has also stated that leaving the EU would not affect existing creative sector tax reliefs. Let us hope that these can be maintained, and perhaps incentives even enhanced, after the lifting of EU restrictions on state-aid rules.
I trust that the Government will do the obvious when it comes to prioritising their sectoral strategy and see that, in giving strong support to the creative industries, they will be backing a winner.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for the opportunity to debate this very important topic.
We are a creative nation and so far as the creative industries are concerned we are ahead of the game. As many speakers have mentioned, they are the fastest-growing sector of the economy, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, said, they are an essential part of promoting the UK around the world.
The Prime Minister referred in her speech to our having the most effective “soft power”—she is right. In a study commissioned by Professor Joseph Nye, who coined the phrase, the UK comes out as global leader. What the Prime Minister did not say is that this is in large part down to the creative industries; that the UK’s cultural collections, institutions, industries and media create powerful channels of communication that help to increase the UK’s profile, forge links internationally and widen our sphere of influence. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones did say this, but I feel compelled to add to his rather pale, male list of examples of those who spread the word about the UK so that it includes Adele—I think this is her third namecheck today—Idris Elba and Paddington Bear. Supporting and protecting this vital, vibrant sector is paramount to our economy, to our country’s sense of itself and to our place in the world.
Here, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Our creative industries have massively benefited from our membership of the EU. Take the British music industry. It contributes £3.8 billion to the UK economy, and Europe is its second-largest market. Take television. The UK is the second-largest exporter of television programmes and formats in the world, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, eloquently enumerated specific concerns in this area. Take the fashion industry. London is Europe’s hub for first jobs and start-ups. Alexandra Shulman, the editor of Vogue, who should know, has expressed concern, saying that a lot of people working in the fashion houses are not British and,
“many of our fashion students when they graduate get great jobs working abroad … Versace, Prada, Yves Saint Laurent—they use our designers”.
Membership of the EU has meant that music and television producers and retailers can export and import freely across the continent. It has meant unrestricted access to the world’s largest trade area.
Crucially, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Foster, the free movement of people to work and travel across Europe without the need for visas has both facilitated and fuelled the exchange of culture, creativity and expertise, and generated commercial and artistic opportunities. Therefore, we welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of the urgent need for a reciprocal arrangement with the EU on its nationals working in the UK and those British citizens currently employed in the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, so clearly stated, without the right deal on the movement of talent and skills, the creative industries will face big challenges. Will the Minister give his assurance that the Government understand that?
Creative skills do not sit easily with the traditional qualifications that the Home Office uses to evaluate visa applications. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, all mentioned this. The contributions of those with creative skills cannot be as tangibly assessed. Many creative jobs are for small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have the resources and back-up of big businesses, yet will be competing with them for a finite number of visas. There are also specific skills gaps that will need to be recognised and addressed, including the importance of freelancers.
As my noble friend Lord Foster mentioned, the Prime Minister acknowledged in her speech the need for investment in skills. Will the Minister ensure that this will involve the inclusion of creative subjects in the school curriculum—STEAM not STEM? The success of those in the creative industries lies in the fusion of creative and technological skills, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred to the relationship between creative and tech subjects. Schools need to be encouraged to promote not science or art but the art/science crossover. The Victorians understood this. They created the Science and Art Department and invested in what was to become the V&A, in order to develop the skills needed to feed British industry. The Prime Minister said in her speech:
“A global Britain must also be a country that looks to the future. That means being one of the best places in the world for science and innovation”.
I hope she recognises what the Victorians did and that the emphasis on science and innovation in post-Brexit Britain includes innovation in the creative industries.
Then there is the matter of funding, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Without the right deal, the UK’s creative industries will lose EU investment—investment which, by the way, also supports the development of creative skills. Across the country, there are examples of our membership of the EU enhancing UK culture. The Creative Europe programme has been referred to. UK applicants for this funding have a success rate almost double that of the EU average, and the programme is introducing a new bank guarantee, the cultural and creative sector guarantee facility, which is worth €121 million and will underwrite bank loans to creative businesses. The European Development Fund, also much mentioned, has supported cultural projects across the UK, such as Sage Gateshead, and has been critical to the growth in film production in the regions. Four British films, nominated for a total of 11 BAFTAs this year, have received EU funding. Will the Minister assure us that where access to EU funding is lost, the Government will seek to maintain investment through UK-based schemes? This request was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, and my noble friend Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones addressed this in detail, so I will not repeat what he said.
To conclude, in her speech the Prime Minister mentioned our “new modern industrial strategy”. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and many other noble Lords mentioned that the strategy does not refer to the creative industries. Can the Minister confirm that they are recognised as central to this strategy and that, since there is to be a sector-by-sector approach to Brexit, the creative industries will be regarded as a key strategic sector with parity of esteem alongside the aerospace, finance and automotive sectors? As the Creative Industries Federation has said,
“the position of a government that prioritises controlling borders above all else to leave the single market”,
will make a,
“sector-by-sector approach to trade particularly critical … if the creative industries are to continue to thrive”.
Finally, in a survey conducted by the CIF of its members, 96% of those who took part supported remain. The Liberal Democrats have always been champions of creators and of their industries, and we call on the Government to listen to their concerns and ensure that the creative industries are at the top table when Brexit negotiations begin. Unless the interests of the creative industries are protected, leaving the single market will be a disaster for what I believe to be a jewel in the crown of our economy and a great British success story.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate today. He and many other noble Lords have spoken very powerfully in what has been a very good debate about the significance of the creative industries not only to our economy going forward but to our fundamental culture and way of life, and how important they are now and will be in the future.
As noble Lords have said, the creative industries are our fastest-growing economic sector, worth around £87 billion to the economy. They support one in 10 jobs, with one in 17 people in the UK workforce directly employed in the sector—so we cannot ignore the economic significance that it brings. As the Creative Industries Federation has noted, and as my noble friend Lady Rebuck articulated very well, at an international level our creative output is known as our calling card around the globe. It means so much more than just an economic contribution. Perhaps that is why 96% of its membership supported staying in the EU.
As has been said, this is about more than just an economic trade benefit. We also lead the world in soft power and cultural influence. That is crucial but much harder to evaluate. Perhaps that is why that contribution is sometimes ignored.
It is understandable why the Brexit decision came as such a shock for a sector that has thrived on international collaboration and global mutual respect. It is to its credit that it has sought to find a positive narrative about the future of the creative sector outside the European family, which will prove a challenge to us all. However, the sector has good reason to be optimistic. Its reputation as our fastest-growing industry cannot easily be diminished. By its very nature it has some of the most imaginative and creative leaders, who are not daunted by a new challenge.
However, sadly, it is hampered by the failure of government to recognise its worth or to ensure that it has a place at the top table of the Brexit negotiations—a point that has been made a number of times today. As many noble Lords around the Chamber have said, the failure of the Prime Minister to mention the sector in her speech this week was very instrumental, and illustrative of the lack of understanding of the contribution it has made.
It will be interesting to see how much the creative industries figure in the modern industrial strategy, which is due to be published next week. I hope we will hear from the Minister that there will be a much stronger positioning and role for the sector in that strategy. I further hope that he will be able to give some guarantees on what sort of involvement we will have in the Brexit negotiations and discussions over the coming months, because the sector has identified some pressing and particular problems that will need to be addressed.
First, as we have heard, the sector would be particularly badly affected by constraints on freedom of movement. Estimates of the number of EU nationals in the creative industries workforce here vary from 10% to 40%. My noble friend Lord Puttnam made a compelling and passionate case as to why the Government should immediately guarantee the status of EU nationals already living and working in the UK and not treat them as a bargaining chip. We on these Benches have already called on the Government to end the damaging uncertainty for those people who have been living in, working in and contributing to our communities.
Beyond that, we need to recognise the international flow of workers and productions that underpin the success of the creative sector, as eloquently described by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others. Any tighter immigration rules and visa requirements could create an unsustainable cost and barrier, for example for UK companies touring abroad and for UK venues that regularly showcase European and international acts. They would also add complexities for those in the film and TV sectors, which have traditionally operated across borders, and could constrain people filming in Europe and European people filming in the UK.
If it is the Government’s intention that we should use more home-grown creative talent to fill some of those gaps, it remains unclear why the Government have consistently downgraded the arts and creativity in the school curriculum. It is not clear that we are training the next generation to fill those gaps.
All these issues need urgent clarification and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the process by which the new freedom of movement rules will be agreed and how the particular concerns of this sector will be factored into the new discussions and final agreement.
Secondly, a number of noble Lords highlighted the access to EU funding for the arts, which will be lost. For example, as we have heard, Britain has been a net beneficiary of the Creative Europe fund, receiving more EU creative funding than any other country bar Germany. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others, much of this money has been crucially used to fund projects outside London and has played a significant role in wider urban regeneration.
In addition, the film sector also benefits from the EU media scheme, which provided more than €10 million between 2007 and 2013 to the UK film industry. This is being used to support the export of UK films to European cinema audiences and to support the release of European films in the UK. It is also used to subsidise the independent cinema network through the Europa Cinemas scheme. These arts projects are supported by a huge network of smaller and medium-sized creative enterprises as well. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Rebuck, this amounts to something like 250,000 businesses, many of which are small businesses.
Clearly there is an economic need to have the funding available to ensure that these activities are funded in the future. We should start with a full audit of the EU funding so that we know exactly what will need to be replaced. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the department is already beginning to audit exactly what is going on out there—the reach of those funds, how much is not only funded by EU funds but matched by local authority funds and so on. We need a full picture so that we know what will need to be replaced.
At the same time, there is concern about the future of the Horizon 2020 funding. The Government have quite rightly guaranteed those funds until 2020, but there is considerable concern about the longer-term future of innovative projects beyond that date. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what guarantees the Government are able to give at this time and how he envisages those bids for funding happening in the future.
Thirdly, a number of noble Lords quite rightly raised concerns about the prospect of leaving the single market, which the Prime Minister has made clear is her intention. However, it is not so clear where the alternative markets will come from. Exports of creative services account for 9% of UK services exports. The EU is our largest trading partner for creative services, receiving more than 40% of our exports. Whatever replaces the single market, and whatever trade tariffs are agreed, it will undoubtedly raise barriers for those wanting to maintain those lucrative and collaborative links with our EU markets.
I hope the Minister will agree to work closely with organisations such as the Creative Industries Council that are exploring ways to cement the UK’s status as a global hub for commercial activity beyond Brexit. I further hope that he will recognise the need to shore up our status as the EU’s leading digital economy—a point made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We need to liaise with techUK, UK Music and others to ensure that we continue to have involvement in the EU’s harmonisation of regulations around intellectual property and digital content.
Finally, a number of noble Lords raised the wider question of intellectual property rights and copyright. The EU legal regime has provided an effective and efficient framework for registration and enforcement of IP rights. Organisations such as the British Fashion Council and the Design Council have raised concerns about what will replace the EU rules to guarantee future design protection. Can the Minister confirm that the great repeal Bill will ensure that existing creative rights will be protected and enhanced?
This has been an excellent debate. Like many other debates we are due to have in the coming months, it has highlighted the complexities of the task we are about to undertake. However, this sector is thriving and robust and we have no option but to aim for the best deal possible. We can do that if we genuinely harness the creativity of those who have made this sector a success. I hope the Minister will reassure the House that the future will be based on that essential collaboration. I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate on important issues. It is also important for the kind of country that we want to be post Brexit. We therefore owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing the debate. I am also grateful to all other noble Lords who have made thoughtful contributions about something we care about. This sector is important economically and to what we want our country to be like.
In some ways, what many noble Lords have asked me to do is difficult. I have been asked to give firm assurances on many things. The place I have to start, and I suggest all noble Lords start, is the Prime Minister’s speech, which aimed to set out as far as we can some of the positions we have taken and will take. I will not stray beyond that, but I will try to outline our thinking in some of these areas. Some noble Lords will be disappointed that I will not be able to give firm guarantees on things such as funding. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, asked for clear commitments and assurances. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, was much more reasonable. She asked for only an assurance that we were thinking about some of these things. I can of course give that immediately.
It is important to state for the record, and as many others have done—for example, my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald—how important the creative industries are to this country. They contribute more than £87 billion—5.7% of gross value added—and produce extraordinary talent. Home-grown stars did brilliantly at the recent Golden Globe awards. Five of the world’s best-selling albums in 2015 were by British artists: Adele, Coldplay, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, reminded us, One Direction. The creative industries contributed nearly £20 billion in exports and accounted for 1.9 million jobs in 2015.
We want to ensure the best post-Brexit deal for Britain and provide certainty where we can. As I mentioned, the Prime Minister made clear in her keynote speech on Tuesday that that is what we want to do. The Government are working closely with the creative industries to understand the impact and opportunities that Brexit brings. The Culture Secretary has hosted round tables with a number of creative industry sectors, with more planned for early this year. I am grateful to the Creative Industries Council and Creative Industries Federation for their reports on Brexit, which have received close attention in my department.
The Government recognise that it is vital for the creative industries to be able to draw on the best talent and to move equipment between EU countries for film production and concert tours, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, begged me to mention—he need not have begged; he only needed to ask, as I enjoy talking to him on this and other things—taking the moral high ground. We recognise the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. That is why the Prime Minister addressed it specifically in her speech. She used the words,
“as early as we can”.
We think it is right that we can offer EU nationals this certainty as long as it is reciprocated for British citizens in EU countries. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have received emails from UK citizens living in the EU complaining that we were using them as bargaining chips. In fact, we just want parity. I accept that this is a moral matter. It is something we are taking seriously. We want to get to an equitable agreement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and many other noble Lords mentioned, access to European funding, in particular the Creative Europe programme, is also important to the sector. It has provided about €40 million to UK organisations between 2014 and 2016. UK businesses can still apply for this. Furthermore, the Treasury has confirmed it will guarantee funding for structural and investment fund projects that continue after we have left. Although the UK is a net beneficiary of these funds, it represents a small percentage of overall public funding to arts and culture.
Lord Blencathra
If our net contribution to the European budget is about £9 billion, would my noble friend accept that if we wished to replace the tiddly little €40 million we could do so in a mere 35 hours-worth of our net funding?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The figures are as my noble friend has said. The decision-making process might take a bit longer than 35 hours, but I accept the point he makes and I agree with him. There are other reasons why Creative Europe is important, apart from the pure quantum of money. Collaboration and partnership are important. But, as the Prime Minister also indicated, she is keen on collaboration. We want to encourage this as part of the negotiations.
Leaving the EU will mean greater control over funding and make regulatory decisions subject to Parliament. As I just said, the UK has a long history of partnerships and co-operation with other countries within and outside the EU. Brexit presents an opportunity to forge new partnerships. For example, the Culture Secretary recently led the largest ever UK culture and creative industries delegation to China, during which she signed a landmark TV co-production treaty. We are only the second country in the world to hold both film and television co-production treaties with China, making us very well positioned to benefit from this massive and growing market.
The UK is home to a number of leading global companies, and investment continues. Google just announced the creation of 3,000 new jobs and a new headquarters in London. Snap—the parent company of Snapchat, as my noble friend Lord Suri reminded us—is moving its global headquarters to London, citing British creativity as the reason.
The Government are fostering an environment where the UK’s creative industries are world beating. Film tax relief, for example, supported more than £1 billion of expenditure in the UK in 2015-16. The new tax reliefs for high-end TV, video games and animation have been very successful too, with more than £417 million invested in the UK by video games companies and £947 million for TV since their introduction, supporting award-winning productions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, mentioned, such as “The Crown” and “The Night Manager”. The reliefs have recently been extended to children’s TV, theatre productions and orchestras. All such tax reliefs are established in UK legislation and fully borne by the UK Exchequer. Therefore, they will not be affected by Brexit.
We understand that access to skilled workers is important to the creative industries. Equally, we have to heed the message from the referendum about control of immigration. The Government are investing in skills to increase the talent available to our creative industries, along with creating a pipeline of future talent. Since 2013, we have made available up to £20 million in match funding to the skills investment fund, helping employers address priority skills needs in the screen sector. Over the last 18 months, this has supported more than 500 graduate placements.
By 2019, our £4 million UK Games Fund to promote regional growth in the video games sector is expected to have created more than 200 new jobs, with a GVA of more than £15 million. Our games sector is renowned for producing globally successful titles such as “Lego Dimensions”, “Batman: Arkham Knight” and the multi-BAFTA winners “Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture” and “Her Story”.
In reply to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for reassurance on where the creative industries sit, and to dispel the somewhat gloomy predictions from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I say that it is not a coincidence that the Culture Secretary sits on the industrial strategy Cabinet sub-committee. Creative industries will be an important part of the strategy. We want to hear views from across the creative industries, especially once our Green Paper has been published. It is expected later this month.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Rebuck, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Foster, argued broadly that we were not taking the creative industries seriously enough. They asked what the position of the creative industries was in the Government’s thinking. I can tell them by way of example that the Culture Secretary, Karen Bradley, said on 9 January to the Creative Industries Federation that one thing that Brexit would not change was the whole Government standing behind creative industries. She also said that creative industries would be at the heart of the industrial strategy. My noble friend Lord Suri’s confidence in the Government in this regard is well placed.
The noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Clement-Jones, spoke of the importance of the country of origin principles in broadcasting. We absolutely understand their importance to the AV sector. Our relationship with the EU market will be determined as part of our exit negotiations and I cannot give further reassurance at this stage, but we are working closely with the industry and meet it regularly. The upside, if we get this right, is the chance to expand as a truly global hub instead of an American and European hub, which we largely are at the moment. There is tremendous opportunity in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the Arts Council review of intellectual property. We are working with the Intellectual Property Office and industry to understand those impacts, and the opportunities for IP and copyright policy as a result of our exit from the EU. He asked when we would publish our response to the recent consultation on copyright. That was actually a call for evidence, but it will inform our EU negotiating position, and the industry’s input on that has been very helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also talked about EU copyright and sought reassurances regarding the digital single market proposals on territoriality. The Intellectual Property Office is currently analysing feedback from its call for evidence on the digital single market copyright reform, but care needs to be taken to ensure that the impact of changes is fully understood and that they do not damage incentives to invest in the creation of copyright content.
As for the digital single market measures on fair remuneration and transparency for artists, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we want to see creators remunerated fairly while making sure that we continue to encourage investment in new content and innovative services—that would be good for everyone. We are aware that the Commission has proposed action in this area. We have engaged with the industry on these matters and look forward to discussing them at an EU level.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned that the department does not have a seat on the main Cabinet committee overseeing Brexit. Nevertheless—and I mentioned the industrial strategy—officials in the department regularly engage with the Department for Exiting the EU. We are certain that it is constantly aware of DCMS’s priorities, reflected at all levels. We make sure that we are in touch with the creative industry sector by way of round tables, some of which are coming up at the end of this month.
There was talk, rightly, about education, the GCSE figures and the arts funding. We absolutely agree on the importance of the arts. It is true that the number of arts entries declined in 2016, but that was one year and we do not think that makes a trend. Between 2012 and 2015, the number of entries for arts subjects rose. Between 2012 and 2016, government invested more than £460 million in a diverse range of music and cultural education programmes. In November 2016, we announced a further £300 million for music and cultural education. In total, that is £685 million between 2012 and 2020. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, mentioned creative subjects in the curriculum. DCMS and the Department for Education are discussing the skills needs of the creative industries and the role of creativity in learning. It is important that we have the right mix of science and arts to meet the future needs of the industry, which she mentioned.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about local authority funding. As I said in answer to a Question from him a few days ago, many local authorities have continued to invest in arts and culture and have responded in innovative ways. We believe that funding decisions should be made at a local level and that local authorities are best placed to decide how to prioritise their spending.
My noble friend Lady Chisholm asked about support for museums and galleries and whether there was a government strategy. As we announced in the DCMS Culture White Paper last year, we are conducting a museums review to gain a deeper understanding of how that sector can best be supported. On timing, the public consultation closed in October and we aim to publish our report in the summer of this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, asked about trade envoys in the US, India and China—that is, our biggest potential trading partners. The noble Lord is quite right that, because they have the largest presence of Foreign Office, trade and British Council staff, Ministers visit those countries regularly. However, we are constantly reviewing the value to the UK of trade envoys and how they relate to British ambassadors.
I have gone through as many questions as I can. There may be others that I have not answered and I will certainly write to those noble Lords who asked them. We agree with many of the issues that have been raised. I am sorry I have been unable to give complete assurances at this stage of the Brexit negotiations, but I emphasise that we fully support the creative industries. We understand their position in the economy and in how we want this country to be seen in the world as part of our soft power. They are central to the UK economy. We are committed to strengthening our international engagement and boosting exports to, and inward investments from, EU and non-EU markets. We intend to work closely with the creative industries and make a big success of Brexit.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. It has been hugely well informed. There are not many people I wish to mention by name, but I want to mention particularly the newly liberated noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, who has made a great contribution today. It is great that she will take part in future debates on the creative industries. She reminded us of the sheer breadth of the subject matter: that it includes museums, galleries, photography, architecture and the arts more broadly. I thank her and look forward to her further contributions.
I also thank the Minister. It is clear that he is in the right job, because he has created mood music today that has answered as many of the questions as I think it was possible for him to do in the circumstances, given that a great number of uncertainties have been raised by so many of us in today’s debate. He was able to give us few specifics, but there were general bits of information and assurances that have been helpful.
When we look back on Hansard, I think that we will see that, between us, we have provided a blueprint for government on what it needs to include in our trade negotiations and in our industrial policy for the sector in the face of Brexit. I know that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter will shortly publish a pamphlet encapsulating many of the issues for the creative industries, which we hope government will take on board alongside those raised in today’s debate.
I do not deny that the creative industries are immensely resourceful, innovative and skilled and they will take every advantage they possibly can in the face of Brexit. Despite the tough rhetoric from the Prime Minister, however, it is almost impossible to see, in the light of what we heard today about the essentials for the continuing success of the creative industries, that any negotiation will ultimately produce a better outcome than continuing membership of the EU single market—sadly. We have heard that 90% of those involved in the creative industries voted to stay in and it is no surprise that they did, in those circumstances, but 100% are now waiting anxiously to see how effective this Government can be in making sure that the sector prospers post-Brexit. On the industrial strategy, seeing will be believing. We have heard assurances about the creative industries being on the top table. We very much hope that that will be the case.
The Prime Minister has promised a parliamentary vote at the end of the negotiation process. On these Benches we believe that a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom on the terms is vital. For many of those involved in the debate today, the litmus test, whatever mechanism on approval is finally decided, will be: is there a good deal in there for the creative industries? We will be looking very intently at the impact of the finally agreed terms on the creative industries and judging the exit package accordingly.
Again, I thank the Minister and all Members of the House who have taken part in this extremely good debate.
Populism and Nationalism
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
That this House takes note of challenges to the liberal international order posed by the development of populism and nationalism around the world.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to move the Motion in my name. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
Tomorrow, President Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. This is something that most commentators did not expect and critics did not take seriously. Indeed, it appears that the majority of American voters did not, and do not, want it. In March, Theresa May will trigger Article 50 to begin the process of leaving the European Union—again, unexpected and not overwhelmingly supported. Because these events were not predicted by most decision-makers, the populist and nationalist rhetoric that fuelled the campaigns were not challenged as forcefully and effectively as many of us feel they should have been.
How did we get here, and what should we do about it? It appears now to be conventional wisdom that globalisation has led to increasing complexity across society and across the world, and this has also led to inequalities of impact, even given that the world economy has grown faster as a result of globalisation. The shock of the 2008 crash has exacerbated all this. Post-war decades of sustained improvement in living standards have been followed by a period of relative stagnation for many individuals and communities. Well-paid industrial jobs have been lost and have been replaced by, in many cases, lower-skilled and lower-paid jobs. Public investment has been cut, services are under pressure, and that is leading to a sense of alienation—aggravated, I would suggest, by the conspicuous earnings and consumption of a few individuals and corporates at the top, who are beyond the reach of Governments, in some cases, being internationally footloose.
Into this ferment, populist and nationalist movements have found opportunity to exploit grievance and fuel anger. The standard analysis from them has been along these lines: “The liberal elite are out of touch. They don’t care about you”. Ironically, these words have been delivered by well-off, expensively educated groups, who have not themselves suffered as those they seek to recruit. Being dedicated to promoting anger and resentment, with a chorus of media cheerleaders behind them, it has been relatively easy to build support in the wake of complacency among those who believed that the benefits of international trade and open liberal societies were somehow self-evident. Misrepresentation of facts, contempt for experts or informed opinion, and the promoting of lies, half-truths and post-truths have gone largely unchallenged, in the belief that established wisdom would prevail.
We have seen the success of the Brexit campaign, the election of Donald Trump and the rise of populist and nationalist movements across Europe. Their success at storming the bastions of the established order has not been replicated by them in the form of any coherent analysis or forward plan. It is characterised by a series of vacuous slogans such as, “I want my country back”, and “Make America great again”, implying some vague, half-remembered and non-existent memory of a golden age. In Scotland, the SNP slogan is similar: “Help us build a better Scotland”.
Now that these movements have secured their place in decision-making, what will they do? The Brexiteers do not agree on how leaving the EU should be achieved and what form non-membership of the EU should take. I suggest that Theresa May has hijacked the referendum, claiming that it meant the end of freedom of movement and leaving the single market, when no such clarity of intent conceivably exists. More seriously, she does not appear to take account of how the other 27 members will react. She seems to think we can leave the EU without making any further contribution or being bound by any of the rules, but retaining most of the benefits. What it may mean for immigration is even less clear. We will end free movement but continue to accept immigrants on our own terms, yet many—but by no means all—of those who voted to leave did so in the belief that we could halt or drastically reduce immigration. It is now pretty clear that that is not going to happen.
Another strand of the argument was that we could bring home the budget and spend it on the health service. Looking at the Trump agenda, we see similar manifestations. Just as leaving the EU appears to mean tearing up not just our comprehensive trade agreement within the single market but all the EU external trade deals, so US international trade agreements are to be torn up or abandoned. On the one hand, we are being lectured that the existing agreements inhibit trade, with no evidence to support that assertion; on the other hand, the new world order starts with scrapping most of the international agreements. In America, restrictions are to be put on Muslim immigrants to the USA, millions of Mexicans are to be deported and a wall is to be built at the Mexicans’ expense. The implication is a bit like a movie being reversed: the loss of jobs and investment in America’s rust belt—or the north of England, the south-west or south Wales—will simply be reversed.
How should we respond to this challenge? First, we must face down lies and misinformation and offer alternative information. We must demand explanations of policy options that can address the grievances that are highlighted. We must also examine policy options which may aggravate grievance and promote those that can offset them. We should not overreact. George Osborne’s alternative budget undermined the case for remain by being far too specific about the likely outcome of a highly uncertain situation. We should surely avoid similarly vacuous or offensive slogans such as, “Brexit means Brexit”, “We will have a red, white and blue Brexit”, or, “If you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere”. Actually, that is precisely how some global corporations choose to behave.
In Scotland during the independence referendum, we had some success in facing down the claims of the nationalists, notably their claim that Scotland could leave the UK and keep the pound. Actually, they asserted that they could keep the pound under more favourable terms than any of the regions of the remaining UK. But post-Brexit the nationalists are at it again. Having spent almost nothing on the remain campaign, leading to SNP voters delivering the largest proportion of leavers, they are now expending a great deal of taxpayers’ money on a fruitless attempt to try to secure a deal that keeps Scotland in the EU as the rest of the UK leaves. This ignores the fact that the UK single market is crucial to Scotland and that the case, conditions and timescale for Scottish accession to the EU—post an independence referendum—are exceptionally uncertain.
Put together, all these arguments amount to: “Never mind the uncertainty. Although we have no idea what future arrangements can be achieved, how long they will take and how much damage will be caused by the long-term uncertainty, we should, to quote Churchill, ‘Just keep buggering on’”. I and these Benches beg to differ. To address Britain’s future responsibly, it is sensible to put the shape of our arrangements outside the EU to the people. Many of Britain’s friends—and America’s, for that matter—are concerned at where we might be heading. Are we turning in on ourselves? How will we work with allies as we dismantle many established co-operative arrangements?
Two issues which can act as litmus tests on how we face the world relate to our overseas aid programme and our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. On the aid programme, the Government have made it clear that they will maintain their commitment to delivering 0.7% of GNI as aid. However, the Prime Minister has appointed an aid-sceptical Secretary of State and there has been a crescendo of media reporting with the objective of getting the budget cut. It is worth noting that social media and official comments coming from DfID consistently set out the positive achievements of our aid spending, but Ministers seem less willing to defend their department’s record, or at least to set it straight given the partial and inaccurate information in many reports. As it is, the dramatic increase in spending on humanitarian relief in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis and the conflict in Yemen have led to some cuts in forward development programmes, which are further hit by the fall in value of the pound and deteriorating trade balances between the UK and developing countries. These development programmes are designed to build resilience and capacity, helping countries to better serve their own citizens and, in the long run, reduce their aid dependency. If we were to cut our spending and back away from longer-term commitments, it would reinforce the image of a Britain turning in on itself and away from its long-term relationships, many of which have involved close connections for two centuries or even more.
More alarming is Theresa May’s revival of her earlier ambition to take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights. She may seek to make an intellectual case for repatriating those rights and making the Supreme Court the final appeal. However, that would give an awful signal of a UK, which was the architect of the convention, downgrading its commitment to human rights in international law. In 2015, we celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, Britain’s gift to the foundations of political and human rights and the rule of law. The populists and nationalists whose voices are so loud now have, I suggest, at best a selective view of human rights but mostly a contemptuous one: that we should do whatever we please in whatever, at any given time, we believe to be the interests of the majority, however defined.
In four years, Americans will have the opportunity to throw out Donald Trump; by contrast, Theresa May has resolved that leaving the European Union, a highly complex process that fundamentally changes our constitution and redefines the rights of our citizens and legal residents in the UK, should be determined by a simple majority and resolved as she thinks fit. Few genuinely democratic constitutions can be changed so easily, certainly not the American one. That stance is, I suggest, profoundly undemocratic and entirely justifies the case for putting the shape of the final agreement to the people, whose motives and expectations on 23 June were clearly very mixed. What she claims to be a clean Brexit will be anything but.
We will not simply stand by if we see the Government taking free rein to pursue a strategy that we believe will leave Britain isolated and politically damaged for generations to come. We must not leave the field to the ultraconservative opponents of liberal and pluralist values. We must stand up to malicious populism and nationalism. To those hurting from the fallout of our faltering economies, we must show our determination that values of tolerance, openness and fairness can help to build vibrant and successful communities and opportunities across the whole of the United Kingdom and beyond.
It is not liberalism that has failed but the loss of liberal values, with too many financial and corporate institutions abandoning integrity and social responsibility, and political leaders tearing up the rulebook and undermining essentially liberal institutions. We should not succumb to the wreckers who are now in ascendancy. We should stand up to them and challenge them, with a reassertion of liberal values of fairness, inclusion, openness and tolerance. I beg to move.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for giving us this opportunity to examine our own consciences and careers. I say that because the rise of populism and nationalism is the result of the failure of conventional politics—and all of us are of course involved in conventional politics. To the extent that populism and nationalism have become powerful in this country, it is in some measure a result of our own failures.
The words of this Motion are directed to the wrong target. It is not populism and nationalism that pose the main threat to the liberal international order. They are the symptoms rather than the disease. The way in which that order is working is provoking the resentment and hostility within many countries that poses the real danger. In his column in the Sunday Times last Sunday, Dominic Lawson wrote that,
“misery is a measurement of the difference between expectations and reality”,
which is a very good aphorism. Since the 2008 financial crisis, that misery index has risen to dangerous heights because the political parties and conventional politics in so many western countries have failed.
Some of the reasons for this are common to a number of countries, including this one. The handling of that financial crisis and what has happened since is obviously one. The banks were bailed out, which was absolutely necessary to prevent an economic breakdown, but no bankers have gone to jail or been held personally responsible. Meanwhile, other sectors of the economy have experienced closures and the attendant job losses, and many people have had their lives thrown into chaos. This has done much to discredit conventional politics and business leaders, and thus to fuel the rise of nationalism and populism.
Another reason common to many countries has been the handling of the combined effects of globalisation and technological advance. While some sections of society have benefited beyond the dreams of avarice, others have lost out badly—none more so than relatively unskilled men and their families. I believe that their problems have not received the priority they deserve in political debate and political programmes. It is no wonder, therefore, that they turned in large numbers to Donald Trump in the United States and are turning in large numbers to UKIP in this country.
Other factors are particular to some countries and regions. For instance, the way the eurozone has functioned has had the opposite effect from the one intended. Far from bringing the people of the eurozone closer together, its workings have driven them further apart and led to a rise in nationalism in a number of countries in northern and southern Europe.
While these developments have been working through the system, conventional political parties, of which many of us in this House are members, have paid little heed to the anger boiling up around us. The most obvious example in this country is the length of time it took us to focus on the concerns surrounding immigration. We failed to explain how the country benefits from immigration and why it needs it, and to tackle the social tensions and deep-seated social fears that it created. It was a double failure: a failure to explain and a failure to act.
I shall give another example of how in this House and in another place our priorities have sometimes diverged from those of the electorate and given rise to anger. While so many government programmes that touch on the lives of ordinary people have been cut or subjected to strict spending limits, the aid programme, to which the noble Lord referred, has been privileged to a unique and unprecedented degree. It is guaranteed a share of GDP, and those who run it are legally obliged to spend up to the limit. This is absolutely the reverse of the way every other programme works. I am not against aid—I am in favour of it—but it is no wonder that privileging the aid budget in a way that no other budget is privileged causes anger and resentment among people who are not prejudiced, not lacking in compassion and not unreasonable, when they compare that with what is happening in the NHS and social welfare.
My conclusion is not that there has been an underlying shift in the standards and values of electorates across the western world. It is rather that Governments and Parliaments have in too many cases, including in this country, failed to take sufficient account of legitimate public concerns. This has left the way open for populists and nationalists, and we must all ask ourselves how much we as individuals are to blame.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his opening speech. I agree with much of what he said. I surprised myself by finding myself agreeing with the opening statement by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat: that a lot of this is due to our failure as politicians and as political leaders of this country. To be popular is good, even though I have worries about populism, and to challenge the elite is also good. To some extent, that is why I am proud to be a Member of this House: because we have that challenge function. However, we are living through catastrophic times—and it is not just the outcome of the referendum in this country, the outcome of the US presidential election and the rise of the far-right across various countries in Europe. It was summed up in Michael Gove’s famous statement that people have had enough of experts. Unfortunately, I think he might be right. Understanding and exploring that is part of our challenge, but it presents a catastrophic challenge for us in trying to make decisions if the expertise upon which those decisions are made is no longer given credence. I have never felt more disfranchised by politics than I do now. The only reason why I continue to be here and to be part of the political party to which I belong is that we are so well led in the House of Lords by my noble friend Lady Smith. We have an absolute absence of leadership nationally, internationally and almost everywhere I look in popular terms.
Why do I think there has been a rise in populism? To an extent, I want to turn to neuroscience, which it is relatively fashionable to do. In an episode of the BBC’s “Four Thought”, Katz Kiely, whom I know, talked about two natural states we have as humans. One is a reward state, which has evolved to keep communities together by making us social, collaborative, creative and able to concentrate to make good decisions. It is in our interest to be social and to work together, which is why we have that reward state. However, we also have a threat state, which evolved to escape predators. It makes us stressed, angry and resistant, and our memory and performance are impaired. We find it difficult to make good decisions in the threat state. Since threat is much more important to us because it is about surviving attack by predators, and being social is a bit more of an add-on, we are six times more likely, in terms of our neural pathways, to be in a threat state than a reward state. It appears that that is what some of our populist politicians are playing to in creating that sense of threat and division.
Much of that threat is because of people’s fear of change. There is huge economic and societal change. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, spoke well about the change in the nature of work, the future of work and how we are seeing these larger disparities between rich and poor. For me, the biggest failing in the international liberal order is that we have not updated and understood the failings of an economic model that came through in the 1980s and has persisted ever since. The value balance between investors, consumers, workers and society is out of sync. According to the latest Stock Exchange reports, investors are doing well. Consumers are also doing pretty well. We are getting quite a lot of free stuff digitally and we are very demanding about getting next-day delivery from Amazon, yet that is at the expense of the 1.7 million workers in the logistics sector, most of whom are being horribly exploited by the supply chain that starts at the top with us wanting instant delivery and cheaper prices. Society is struggling with climate change and health services crises, and an education system that seems to be educating creativity and genius out of people rather than universally educating them to make a good contribution. We are also seeing a commensurate increase in poverty and the income gap.
The shared society is an interesting concept, but I suspect it will go the same way as the big society. As the international order meets in Davos, I hope it will think about how we can reinvent our business management to rebalance value across the four themes I described. We need to look at public service design and a sharing society more precisely and, most importantly, give the majority of people a sense of efficacy over the decisions that affect them; and we need to rebuild trust, which is right at the heart of the crisis we are talking about today.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. I suppose we are very nearly West Country neighbours. History is very clear. There has never been a successfully sustained Government, a prosperous age or an age of peace that was not founded on liberal values. If we part company with those values, what inevitably follows is conflict, division and tyranny. I am particularly struck by the comparison between our age and the 1930s. Then, following a recession and a failure in politics, there was a massive collapse in confidence in the political system and the establishment. Then too, people wondered whether democracy was failing and hungered for the government of strong men. Then too, multilateralism gave way to unilateralism and, indeed, to a surge in nationalism. Then too, as we remember, free trade withered away and protectionism was on the rise. It was also an age when vulgarity always succeeded over decency and when the ugly voices were heard, listened to and followed far more than the quiet voice of reason. It was an age when many of us found it convenient to blame the ills that we were suffering from on the stranger in our midst or the foreigner over the border.
Then as well, politicians could not resist the temptation of the extravagant lie, which it was so much more easy to win support with than the carefully nuanced truth. Your Lordships will recall that the motto of age was, “If you’re going to lie, lie big and lie often”—stick it on the side of a bus, perhaps, and send it round the country. Our age bears horrible comparisons with that. I do not say we are not to blame—as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said, we are—nor do I say that this is not a rational reaction to those failures. I am interested not in who is to blame but in what to do.
One other feature of our age that compares to that one is that the people of the moderate, decent centre were fractured, broken and scattered. They never got their act together, and that gave dominance and the capacity to win to those who depended on that dangerous populism. What about those people in the middle? Hilaire Belloc had it wonderfully when he said:
“The people in between
Looked underdone and harassed,
And out of place and mean,
And horribly embarrassed”.
That is true today.
Spare a thought for a moment for the lost tribes of Labour and the Tory party. What do you do these days if you are part of that great Tory tradition of internationalism and now find yourself in a party that has completely abandoned it? What do you do if you are one of those Labour Members of Parliament who believes in the free market—not as our master but as our servant—and finds your party has explicitly rejected it? It is extraordinary in the last year how much politics has spun away to the extremes. The Conservative Party, albeit with a politer face, now adopts a position which is indistinguishable from that of UKIP. Labour has abandoned, for the first time in its history, any attempt to occupy the moderate centre ground, in favour of what I would regard as unreconstructed 1950s-style hard socialism—the official party, if not all its members.
What are you to do if you belong with those who are left out? What are you to do if you are among those hundreds of thousands in our country who are of the moderate centre and who are as frightened and concerned as we are but do not wish to make that concern felt through a political party? The Brexit campaign, and Trump’s campaign too, gave voice to the voiceless, the disposed and the left out. But they are now well represented. Currently voiceless, left-out and unrepresented is that moderate centre—those moderate, decent people who believe in those broadly liberal values. They are the voiceless ones of our present age.
Here is a thought to finish with. I have been struck in particular that what has changed our politics these last two frightening years has not been political parties but those operating outside the political circle. It is people’s movements that have changed the destinies of countries, colonised political parties or invented new ones, and elected presidents. But why do all the people’s movements have to be about the nasty, ugly things? What about a people’s movement that will at last give voice to the moderate, decent, liberal centre in our country—which is not confined to the Liberal Democrats? We are growing and strong, and happy about that, but what about those who are beyond us? Although 2016 frightened us all with the dreadful things that happened and the rise of destructive populism, could 2017 be the year when we might at last give that moderate, centrist voice, which is so voiceless, a place to be able to change the direction of our country and a role in doing so? In so far as we in the political parties share that view, and in so far as we too are frightened about what is happening, then this is a time for us to get out of our tribes and start working together to ensure that we can help build that centrist, moderate, liberal consensus, in which the only chance lies for altering the very dangerous trajectory of our country.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for introducing this very important debate. I am not a professional politician, but I invite the House to look at the challenge and at the issues behind the case framed, very articulately, by the noble Lord.
First, I want to argue that populism is not a movement but a moment. One of the writers in the briefing for today talked about a thin ideology. It is not a detailed movement, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said; it is a moment. Nietzsche, in the aptly named The Birth of Tragedy, talked about psychological bonding creating a headless movement—it is an expression of feeling, concern or anger, but it is headless. It is like a mood in the background and is really difficult to deal with. Just like President-elect Trump’s tweeting, it is technological chatter, but very difficult to deal with. It is a mood and not a movement. Those of us charged with a political task therefore have quite a challenge to know what we are getting hold of and how to react.
With the liberal order, there is the same issue. Although many well-organised and well-off people have benefited, the fact is that many people not only lack freedom but are now articulating the fact that they feel unfree in a so-called liberal world. Nationalism, again, is a very tricky term. Behind nationalism, when you talk about Brexit, is a whole mix of contradictory things. I want to step a little further back than the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and the 1930s and invite your Lordships to consider some wisdom from Thomas Hobbes. That is partly because he spent a lot of time in Derbyshire and is buried in a church that I go to, but Hobbes can help us see what the issues are, and therefore something of the challenge.
As your Lordships know, Hobbes began by saying people are essentially disunited—perhaps this is the threat element that was just mentioned. The task is to create what he called a covenant: a sense of people joining together under a sovereign. Our sovereign today is parliamentary democracy, or a liberal order. It is not just an intellectual statement that is worked out and agreed, since people will not agree the details, but a kind of psychological bond: a spiritual connection or a sense of being under the same rule of law and the same kind of frame within which life can be lived.
However, as well as recognising that we start disunited but can be assembled in a covenant, Hobbes challenges us, teaching us that once people are in a covenant, that unity will inevitably dissolve and they will go back to being different. The mistake of much of politics, it seems to me, is to assume that once people are in a covenant they have an intellectually agreed position and will just keep negotiating. Most people are not much interested in politics, except for the occasional moment when, psychologically, they bond together to shout out what might turn out to be a cry for help. I suggest that populism or nationalism is being expressed—noble Lords have given examples—through cries for help. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, just pointed to a way in which politicians, perhaps especially, have a responsibility to respond to that cry for help. In my language, it is a spiritual cry, a desire to be connected in a society and in communities and not to feel excluded, unfree and unrewarded.
We have to be very careful not to engage with populism and nationalism too seriously in terms of the thick ideology, because in Nietzsche’s terms, they are rather headless moments. But they are signals to those of us who are guardians of the kind of covenant that can hold people together and give us a sense of belonging and working together. Our challenge is to hear the cry and to look at what the covenant is, what kind of state it is in and how we can re-present it in a way that can bond people again and give them a sense of a common life in a common place for a common purpose.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for calling this debate. It is impossible to do justice to this hugely important topic in five minutes so I am going to focus on just one aspect of it, the development of populism, and ask where this threat has come from and why. If we can answer the question of why, we can go some way towards taking the steps to address the issue.
If we look up a definition of populism we will find it defined as,
“support for the concerns of ordinary people”,
or,
“the quality of appealing to, or being aimed at, ordinary people”.
Supporting and addressing the concerns of ordinary people surely has to be the desire and responsibility of every politician and leader, yet when we see the rise of populism around us we should ask ourselves how effective we have been.
Across Europe, populist parties’ average share of the vote in national and European parliamentary elections has more than doubled since the 1960s, from around 5% to 13%, at the expense of centre parties. Since the 1960s populist parties’ share of seats has tripled, from nearly 4% to nearly 13%. In most recent polling, Marine Le Pen’s Front National party is at 26.5%, a lead of 1.5% over former Prime Minister Fillon.
Ordinary people are voting for and identifying with parties that are communicating in a way that taps into their major concerns, enabling them to feel as though they have been heard. This is a challenge to us as mainstream parties and to the liberal international order. Why are we not meeting that need? In a joint piece of work undertaken recently by the Legatum Institute and the Centre for Social Justice—I refer to my entry in the Members’ register of interests—called 48:52 Healing a Divided Nation, we looked at what some identify as populism and at what motivated some of the 52% to vote the way they did in the Brexit vote. The story of 48:52 is not just a story of the rise of populism. The decision to leave the European Union was a bold and unequivocal statement for millions of people who wanted to change the political, social and economic status quo. It was a moment in time for them, a rational choice, when those who had not felt heard by the establishment expressed their desire to take back control—control of their wages and of their public services.
As we have sought to research and analyse the underlying issues, a number of well-known themes have emerged, such as concern about immigration, a desire for sovereignty and a sense of community alienation. However, there are also some more deeply embedded themes. Whole swathes of British society are concerned about: their wages and their job security—the impact of globalisation and technological changes to the nature of employment itself; the security of their home and access to housing; and pressure on public services, particularly education and health. This is the deeper malaise that the Prime Minister identified when she made her speech on the doorstep of No.10, and which she has kept referring to ever since. In my view, these are some of the deep social issues that lie at the heart of the rise of populism. In light of this, it is perhaps no surprise that the vote disregarded the dire warnings of the establishment, including the then Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Bank of England, the World Bank, the IMF and President Obama. Their threats and warnings showed that the establishment understood little of the lives of the 52%.
There is one other factor at play here in the rise of populism. When those who feel that the establishment does not understand their concerns look for leadership to our great institutions, we need to be aware of what they have seen. Instead of seeing a leadership that is there to take responsibility and to serve, they have looked at the finance sector and seen the banking crisis; looked at the media and seen the hacking scandal; looked at politicians and seen the expenses scandal; and even looked at top sports men and women and seen the doping and bribery scandals. There is a challenge to the liberal order, but it is one that should lead us to address the social issues that have been highlighted by the rise of populism and to ensure that the historic institutions of this nation are led with integrity for the benefit of the many, not just the few.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I happily confess to being an expert on nothing. I guess that gives me the right to speak today.
We live in an age of unanticipated shocks. No leading economist foresaw the coming of the world financial crisis; Alan Greenspan famously went from hero to zero overnight. Few commentators gave Donald Trump much chance of getting the Republican nomination, let alone becoming President of the United States. Everyone suddenly becomes wise after the event, and then there is a kind of media-driven rush to judgment. Thus the surge of populism has been widely explained in terms of a divide between the winners and losers of globalisation. However, things are much more complex than that. I shall argue that populism in our age, of both the left and the right, is as much a creature of globalisation as it is a reaction to it.
It is a great mistake to equate globalisation, as so many do, solely with economic ties and free trade. The Prime Minister, in a speech given moments ago, used “globalisation” in precisely that way, as indeed everyone seems to, but it is not correct. Globalisation is about accelerating interdependence in all its forms. The world today is massively more interconnected than in any other era, and in a host of different ways. This is new territory for us all. The opportunities are huge but so are the risks. Climate change and the ravaging of the world’s ecosystems, for example, are just as much features of globalisation as is the spread of free markets.
The origins of the “populist explosion”, as one book calls it, are several. I will be academic about it and mention four of them here. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned, is the continuing dislocation produced by the financial crisis, a crisis that remains unresolved in the industrial countries. Ordinary citizens have had to pick up the costs of the miscreant behaviour of financial speculators who have largely escaped unscathed. The result has been cutbacks in health services, welfare and many other areas in virtually all the industrial countries.
The second is a revolt of the dispossessed, or those who feel themselves to be so. However, this is not only about a white working class left behind by deindustrialisation, and its roots are not only economic. It includes a disproportionately large number of older people, for example. Worries about immigration are to some extent a code for wider feelings of cultural alienation in a time of endless change. I recommend to all noble Lords a book by the sociologist Arlie Hochschild called Strangers in Their Own Land, which applies to many people in this country who feel left behind, not economically but by the pace of change all around them, and who look for a national identity as a result. She also talks of “stay-at-home migrants”, people who are stuck but still feel outdistanced by change.
Thirdly, and crucial to it all, is the impact of the digital revolution. Its imprint is everywhere. Most populist parties are heavily organised online, yet the list goes on: “post-truth politics”, echo chambers, President Putin’s cyberwars, Mrs Clinton’s emails and Mr Trump’s tweets. The return to tradition that drives many forms of populism is certainly not tradition in its traditional form.
The fourth is sheer contingency—what you might call, “Events, dear boy, events”—which is so important both in everyday life and world history. Some 300,000 out of 139 million voters in a couple of key states settled the result of the presidential election in the US. However, once such an outcome is achieved, the world looks, and is, very different. President-elect Trump is, if I can put it this way, a complex personality whose political views have, one could say, evolved over the years. He used to be a Democrat, for example. His proposed rolling back of the US from the world stage would seem to be a lot more than purely economic. It looks like a wholesale retreat—this touches on what the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said—from cosmopolitan values, rights of equality and protection for the poor. Not least important, Mr Trump will promote the fossil fuel companies and says that he will scupper the Paris accords. President Xi comes to Davos and gives a speech that Hillary Clinton might have given if she had won. Can one superpower replace another, so far as global government is concerned; or, as the new Administration seem to want, can they run the world in collusion with Russia? I doubt that very much. Global governance risks being undermined at the very time we need it most and in ways stretching far beyond free trade.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, there is a newspaper headline today, “Don’t mention the war”. I will do precisely that, because I lived through it. Although I was very small and did not understand its full implications, and lived in a rural community in north Wales, I still remember the thrum of bombers going over from Germany to bomb Liverpool, and I remember the aftermath of the war and the determination there was everywhere that war should not occur again.
What attracted me to the Liberal Party was Jo Grimond’s book The Liberal Future, and his emphasis on the importance of strengthening international institutions and supporting international law and the United Nations, which campaigned against aggressive wars and instituted a global fight against disease and poverty that recognised human rights. Those were messages that appealed to me as a young man. I had looked at Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, and, as, as I mentioned earlier this week, I voted for the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, when he was a Plaid Cymru candidate in my hometown, but I quickly discovered that Plaid Cymru, as a nationalist party, was defined and defined itself by its enemy. It was not a set of values or policies: the enemy was Westminster.
The day before yesterday, when Plaid Cymru, in the National Assembly in Cardiff, considered the Wales Bill and the referred powers model under the Bill—its powers over taxation, its increased borrowing powers—the reaction of its leader was to say: “We are of the view that the very basis of the Bill is flawed. We blame the flaws in the Bill clearly on Westminster and Whitehall. We do not want to accept crumbs from the table of Westminster”. You will see nationalism, whether it is in Scotland or Wales, defined by its opposition to Westminster rather than anything else.
The enemy for UKIP and the right-wing of the Tory Party is Brussels. What is often said is the problem with Brussels is red tape—regulation imposing standards on us we do not want as a nation. What are those standards about? Generally, they cover workers’ rights, environmental controls, food standards, and matters of that sort. The nationalists in this country in UKIP and elsewhere seem to think that these are imposed on us, a yoke that we have to bear. They also oppose the European Court of Human Rights. What a great concept it was for those who devised the European convention: those who thought that, in a war-torn Europe, it will be a good idea to have a common set of principles—such as the belief in the rule of law, respect for life, the prohibition of torture, respect for family life, and a common standard of justice—and that those principles should be supported in the European Court of Human Rights.
Yet those of the right wing—of UKIP and others—say that this is all wrong: that we as British people should withdraw within our own boundaries and create our own standards, as though our standards should be different from those that appertain in Europe. The European Court of Justice, another institution which creates common law across Europe, is also attacked in the same way.
Populism—the real people against the elite—is headless, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said a moment ago. Being headless, it is open to demagogues. We have seen that populism is taken over by those who do not feel that they are real people themselves, in the sense that they use that expression. They do not come from the poorer parts of our community. These are people with wealth, and so on. They show contempt for experts and promote extravagant lies—as my noble friend Lord Ashdown put it—which is so against the interests of everybody in this country.
We have to fight for liberal values. We have to maintain them in the face of all the current problems and perils. I share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about where we are at present.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is hard to credit that anyone who follows international affairs can now be in doubt that the rules-based international order, so painstakingly built up over the 70 years since the disasters of two world wars, is currently under greater challenge than it has ever been; or that the response so far of countries such as ours, which has done so much to contribute to that rules-based order, and which still regarded its maintenance as a national interest—look at last year’s security review—has been quite inadequate in the face of those challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has done us a favour by bringing this matter forward for debate today, although effective collective action to those challenges is needed, not just debate.
Why is this situation so serious? I suggest it is because the challenges reach across such a wide area, encompassing peace and security, human rights, trade policy and climate change, to mention a few. Because the political will to face up to these challenges still seems to be ebbing rather than strengthening. The horrors of the siege of Aleppo, which is merely the most recent event in the abject failure of the international community to exercise its responsibility to protect the Syrian people, is fresh in all our minds, but the actions of President Putin to overturn the post-Cold War European order by seizing Crimea and destabilising Ukraine, are still open wounds. The trampling by Islamic State of every one of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an appalling reminder that those rights are not secure. Add to that the challenge of trade protectionism, which did so much in the 1930s to create the conditions for a global disaster, and the threat from nuclear proliferation, only temporarily held in check by the P5 plus one’s agreement with Iran.
That is a daunting yet incomplete list. What can be done to reverse those damaging trends? I suggest that there are four traps that we need to avoid. The first is to attribute all the damage being done to the rules-based international system to the surge in support for protest movements. That surge certainly makes finding solutions more difficult and could, if left to grow unchecked, make our predicament even worse. But we must not dismiss these large protest votes in this country and in the US last year, and perhaps elsewhere in Europe within months, as simply aberrant reactions that can be ignored. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said, populism is as much a symptom as it is a cause. Where we can find some policy responses to the root causes of those negative protest reactions, we will really need to deploy them.
The second trap is to believe that we are engaged in some titanic struggle between nation states and multilateral organisations. The nation state is not under threat, nor is it the root of all evil, nor is it about to disappear. It is in fact an essential building block for that international co-operation which is required if we are to handle successfully all those policy areas where action by individual states is no longer adequate to the task.
The third trap is to do nothing apart from wringing our hands. Intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan may have been the misguided or inadequate but non-intervention is a policy choice too, fraught with consequences, as we have seen in Syria. Allowing world trade liberalisation, which has brought so many millions of people out of poverty in recent years, to founder in tit-for-tat retaliation would simply lead to impoverishment and destabilisation, as it did in the 1930s.
The fourth trap is to believe in all that loose talk about living in a post-truth world. We may indeed live in a world where it is easier than before to plant plain lies on the public consciousness, but we do not live in a post-reality world, so sooner rather than later we will find current trends, if unchecked, leading to real, serious damage to our prosperity and security.
If we are to avoid these traps, we will certainly need to make a better job than we have done in the past of setting out a compelling case for the benefits of a rules-based international order. That case will need to cover the whole range of our international commitments and obligations in the UN, NATO and the World Trade Organization. It will require making common cause with other like-minded countries—often our former partners in the European Union. Where will the United States stand in all this? That is not a question that can or should be answered with confidence one day before President Trump is inaugurated. But neither systematic compliance with US policies nor systematic opposition to them would seem a sensible approach. That means we—and, above all, our Government—will face some difficult choices in the months and years ahead.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for calling this important debate on the challenges posed to the liberal international order. I should say from the outset that I am a firm believer in that order and in a rules-based international system; indeed, I am here today because of it. My father defected from communist Czechoslovakia. He arrived in the liberal West as a refugee and went on to gain a place at Princeton University and become a professor at IMD, the international Swiss business school. It is something that I have never forgotten and for which my family will always be indebted and grateful.
No one on these Benches is likely to defend demagoguery or so-called post-truth politics. Yet it is all too easy to be lofty about populism. We should remember that none of us was elected to this Chamber by popular vote. Indeed, many of us, myself included, have never been elected by popular vote. We need to be especially careful that we avoid even a scintilla of condescension or disdain for the concerns of normal people. Most people are not prone to intolerance or prejudice and we should always challenge the demonisation of minority groups both at home and abroad.
It is too simple, however, to dismiss a politician seeking to address legitimate popular concerns as a populist. It is precisely that undertone of incomprehension, merging sometimes into contempt, that is causing damage to politics right across the West. Take, for example, Italy. Last month Matteo Renzi’s failure to secure approval for a series of complex constitutional changes was widely attributed to populism, yet many Italians had substantive and legitimate concerns about the proposals themselves. Some feared, ironically, that the very same populist politicians opposing the changes could benefit from them in the future. They worried that the proposed weakening of the upper House would give politicians such as the Five Star Movement a greater ability to change the country for the worse if they were to gain control of the lower House. Those people therefore voted alongside the Five Star Movement against the proposed changes. A vote dismissed as populist was for many the exact opposite.
There were others in the Italian referendum who may have chosen to vote with the Five Star Movement because they felt it understood, better than other politicians, Italy’s contemporary problems. Italy has suffered two lost decades of growth and the danger to Italian politics has been the failure by mainstream politicians seriously to address this. All of us who are truly democrats must remember the importance for politicians of understanding the reasonable concerns of the electorate.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asks us to take note of the challenges posed by nationalism as well as populism. Here, too, we must be cautious. As I said at the beginning, I believe passionately in an international order, and that order ought to be just that: international. A system of nation states, freely trading with one another under the rule of law, remains the most effective way of protecting personal rights and enriching peoples. It must surely be legitimate for those nation states to defend their own borders and define their own national narrative.
I do not believe that the damage to western politics is inevitable or irreversible. I thought the Prime Minister was right in her speech at Davos to talk about the need to respond to those who feel left behind by globalisation. She was right to address it and right to resist the siren calls to slow or reverse the open movement of talent, trade and investment that, for me, is an indispensable part of the liberal international order. At our best, this has always been the British way and I believe it will continue to be so.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, suggests, across the democratic world our societies are increasingly divided, and trust in our elected representatives is alarmingly low. What is worse is that many politicians and people in the media revel in this divisiveness. Their very livelihoods depend on it and for this, cynically, they add fuel to the fire.
As long as we continue to play the same game of democracy as we know it, things will go from bad to worse. It is a system failure and it creates democratically elected authoritarians and dysfunctional coalitions. Yes, people are disillusioned. They feel that their voice no longer counts. Politics has become deeply polarised. The strong centre has evaporated. Both sides now tout their own version of us versus them; the left is often misperceived as anti-business, the right as xenophobic.
We are at serious risk of becoming a closed society, unable to embrace diversity, unable to demonstrate compassion and tolerance for difference and likely to increase exclusion. The deep divisions that we have created may lead to even greater marginalisation. Those who felt left behind before are now likely to experience an even worse version of exclusion, insularity and ethnocentricity than they ever felt.
However, there is good news. Noble Lords will know that I do not like to bemoan a situation, however bad and complex, without being able to come up with a practical solution—and here it is. New thinking has been emerging in places such as Iceland, Finland, Argentina, the Netherlands, and also here in the UK. New technologies across myriad different sectors have now made it possible for very large groups of people to interact and collaborate with each other and come up with better answers.
This phenomenon, described by Professor Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum in his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, is a fusion of technologies that are blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres. It is the current trend of automation and data exchange technologies and it includes cyberphysical systems, the internet of things and cloud computing. With it, we could create a better future system with a new political platform that actually establishes Abraham Lincoln’s ideal of,
“government of the people, for the people and by the people”.
Business, and particularly in my own field—retail—has already grasped this and is flourishing in the new milieu online and seeing the old forms of shopping in retreat. This technology, and making use of big data, are based on the notion that none of us is as smart as all of us. The crowd can be wiser and make much better decisions than any single representative or group of elected officials.
A new form of governance based on the use of this technology has been termed “crowdocracy”. It needs to be properly managed, to guide how the crowd functions, and this could be our role. Some traditionalists are frightened that this could lead to tyranny. Yes, get the conditions wrong and the crowd nearly always dumbs down and then makes some very poor choices. This should not put us off—it should spur us to modernise more speedily and expertly and use this new technology.
Politicians, unlike business, have failed to grasp the enormity of the benefit of this fourth industrial revolution. If we use this technology correctly and access diversity of knowledge and opinion, ensuring that people are in possession of accurate information, we would foster independence of thought and collaboration, decentralise power, and integrate the collective input into coherent crowd-sourced solutions. We could harness the wisdom of the crowd for the good of the many, not just the few. In this way we would stop privileging a small section of society and marginalising others; we would stop making things worse by creating divisive 48%:52% splits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, mentioned; and instead we would develop the ability to make wise decisions that are in the best interests of all of us, regardless of political persuasion, and not just some.
This is not a fanciful utopia. I have already witnessed and been involved in testing this approach here in the UK, and there are strong indications that it is working. We could lead the world in the modernisation of democracy. We have a historic opportunity to transform ourselves from cynical and suspicious spectators and to all become genuine participants and actors in the governance of our community and of society at large.
I have placed in the Library several copies of the book Crowdocracy, written on this phenomenon by Dr Alan Watkins and Iman Stratenus. It is an interesting and enlightening read and would enable noble Lords to appreciate the potential of this idea. It will require genuine, thoughtful leadership, deep compassion and real courage to test, but together we could modernise our democracy and build a new form of governance for the greater good of all of us. Perhaps the Minister and those interested would be willing to meet experts in this field to examine the possibilities for tackling the challenges signalled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have a debate like this, which allows us to identify some of the more philosophical dynamics at play in contemporary political developments. The excellent Library note for this debate makes it clear that language matters, and that definition of terms is not incidental. Populism is clearly more than a movement of people who listen only to the facts that support the prejudices that they have already nurtured, but it can exploit assertive language in such a way as to obscure truth. This is what I wish to focus on here. Whereas others will discuss the importance of a rules-based international order, I want to say something about language in a post-truth or post-factual world, and pose a couple of questions about the assumptions we make regarding history.
The United Kingdom, as illustrated by the unfortunate reference of the Foreign Secretary yesterday, has defined itself by its share in the defeat of fascism in the 20th century. But have we moved on? If we assume that our domestic order has been defined for ever by a past victory, we should not be surprised when our complacency finds itself undermined by events that are not trapped in that same narrative. Democracy and the rule of law are not natural and immutable givens, but are goals for which we must struggle in each generation. This is why the narratives that guide our self-understanding as a nation among nations on a very small planet in a very large universe matter so much. It is why the UK seeing itself through the lens of a long-gone empire is so facile. It is why seeing Germany simply through the lens of Adolf Hitler is ridiculous. It is why illusions of power are dangerous when they shape language and rhetoric that are heard differently by other audiences. We need new narratives for the contemporary world—narratives of hope rooted in an authentic anthropology that takes seriously the destructive elements of human nature, or what used to be known as “sin”.
Western liberalism has become complacent about its own self-evident superiority. It is arguable that the proper balance between individual rights and concerns for the common good has not been established. I would argue that this complacency has contributed to the sense of alienation and detachment being seen in what is being called political populism. Progress is not inevitable; it is not true that things can only get better; human rights cannot be assumed to be self-evidently right. Battles for peace, order and social cohesion are not won once and for ever. The tendency to entropy is powerful and finds it easier to pull down rather than build up.
The sorts of populism we see now are destructive precisely because they evidently collude in destruction without a compelling vision for what should be constructed. Hence, we have seen a referendum campaign fuelled by lies, misrepresentation and an easy readiness to abuse language. Who are the elites—especially when they are being condemned or ridiculed by public school and Oxbridge-educated journalist-politicians who command six-figure incomes above and beyond their basic salary, and who will, whatever the outcome of Brexit, not suffer greatly? Why does it not matter that promises can be made in a referendum campaign that simply get dismissed within hours of that campaign ending? Can liberal order survive the corruption of language and the reduction of truth or fact to mere political convenience or expediency? It is not a game.
Tomorrow sees the inauguration of a US President for whom truth is a commodity to be traded. Direct contradiction of what is proven fact is loudly asserted without shame or embarrassment. I make no comment or judgment about his ability to govern the United States or contribute intelligently and wisely to the establishment of a just international order; I simply observe that the corruption of language and truth is in itself dangerous for everyone.
This debate is about the challenges to the liberal international order posed by the development of populism and nationalism around the world. The liberal international order is not a natural given or an inevitable right. It begs as many questions of inherent legitimacy, for example, as it addresses. Populism and nationalism are not new phenomena, and their development is a constant in societies that feel uncertain or have lost the security found in a clear sense of common or mutual identity. The particular danger of today’s developments around the world is that instability is far easier to create than stability; that order is fragile and chaos a tempting attraction; that the spectre haunting Europe and the world has little to do with “what the people—whoever they are—want” and much to do with how they can be manipulated into thinking that what they are told they want is in fact what is good for them. The anti-elitist anti-establishmentarians are perpetrating a fraud in their elitist and self-promoting rhetorics. But they will not be the people to pay the price.
I suspect that the order of the past is being challenged by the threat or promise of a new order. It is essential that we articulate a compelling vision for an order that serves the common good, shapes a good society and resists the claims of a post-truth rhetoric which tells us that lying is acceptable as a means to an end.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on introducing this most timely debate. In industrialised societies, we are seeing the rise of political movements that are challenging liberal values and the consensus that has existed for decades. Two major countries continue single-mindedly to expand their interests—namely, Russia and China—which unnerves their neighbours. In some countries, religion is being used to further sustain the control and popularity of governing regimes. At the WEF meeting this week in Davos, it is precisely these themes which are sources of discussion and concern. The rise of nationalism and protectionism challenge existing multilateral co-operation and institutions, which is particularly difficult for countries which have led enhanced international co-operation and agreement.
I say this because, however critical and concerned we may be about these themes, it seems to me that we need to delve into some of the actual reasons for this in Europe and the United States in particular. After the Second World War, a remarkable level of social cohesion developed in many western societies. In the United States, manufacturing grew apace and living standards improved markedly across economic divides, irrespective of education or skills levels. In areas described today as the rust belt, there were jobs for all. In France, there is now nostalgia for the 30 glorious years of economic and social advance in the same period. Despite frequent industrial disturbances here, a former Prime Minister said that we had,
“never had it so good”.
I believe that much of this sense of alienation today arises from the embers of the financial crash of 2008. Some Governments had concluded that, in the prosperous preceding years, fiscal caution could be de-emphasised or even abandoned. With the resulting high budgetary deficits, traditional Keynesian responses to the crash were extremely difficult to pursue. Instead, central banks pursued a policy of very low interest rates; this in turn led to high asset inflation, the beneficiaries being those who could borrow money and participate often in property booms. Many citizens felt that those in the financial sector who had recklessly contributed to the financial crash escaped any real censure. Technology changes added to the concerns of those who felt separated from economic recovery, particularly in the United States, so that the very underpinnings of social cohesion began to fracture. High-end pay became in some instances wholly disconnected from successful performance. All this made for a combustible cocktail.
Institutional structures further aggravated this. If we look at Europe, at Laeken there was a serious discussion about how European citizens could feel a greater sense of ownership of the European Union and its institutions. In what would eventually emerge, even the most enthusiastic Europhile would accept that the promised sense of ownership was simply never restored. For example, no transitional arrangements were made here for citizens of the new accession countries and the assurances given were that the numbers coming here would be minimal. I happen to have supported the remain cause in the referendum last year but now, all over Europe, there is anxiety about the consequences of globalisation in practice, unrestricted free movement of labour, migratory flows that are in part simply economic, and human rights legislation that can overturn national responses. Much of the manifestation of the resulting populism and nationalism challenges the very democratic values that we all cherish, but we need to take care that the legal and institutional structures that we have constructed to enshrine these long-fought-for values do not in themselves appear inflexible, unresponsive or intolerant of people’s genuine concerns. The remain campaign focused on the economy—usually the basis for electoral success—but this was rejected by people feeling that their identity was being challenged by forces over which they had no control.
If we look down the track at the effect of artificial intelligence, for example, this will further challenge populism, because populism offers a false hope. The change of technology is likely to disappoint those who have supported it. We look at what is happening in France with Marine Le Pen offering protectionism as a solution to high French unemployment—a similar situation is being echoed in the United States. Mercifully, we do not have extreme left or right-wing political movements in this country. We remain a remarkably liberal and open society, but we have to guard against the undermining of this. To do so, we must not permit those liberal values to morph into illiberality, which is to turn a blind eye to negative social attitudes and practices while intolerantly closing down debate and open discussion that impacts the lives of our citizens, leading to their alienation. We in this country are fortunate to be able to resist protectionism and illiberalism. It is part of our role in this Chamber to ensure that those values are continued and cherished.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, we all unite against the excesses of populism and nationalism, but there are some positive features in both. Populism in particular is a “boo” word, but does it have to be? Some claim that liberal elites use the word to devalue the views of the majority—examples are of course the response to the victories of Trump and Brexit. I ask myself: if I were an unemployed car worker in Detroit and heard, or thought I heard, myself described by Mrs Clinton as a “deplorable”, how would I respond to that? Would I not seek an opportunity to kick back in anger and take back control?
Clearly, power should be shared more equitably, and colleagues have set out the problems. I noticed in yesterday’s Financial Times that Martin Wolf wrote:
“Those who did well out of globalisation … paid … little attention to those who did not”.
That is a challenge for us all and, as I look at the Bishops’ Bench, I think of the other aspect of the “preferential option for the poor”.
Clearly, every politician has to listen—to some extent even dictators, even if they respond with bread and circuses—but there are dangers in this populism. In his Democracy in America, de Tocqueville described the “tyranny of the majority”, with waves of popular emotion preventing consistent policies—a danger now facilitated by social media. JL Talmon, in The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, charted how the concept of the general will morphed into democratic centralism, Stalinism and, perhaps now alas, into Putinism.
Obviously, populism is a serious challenge to traditional forms of governance. It is relatively easy to describe but very difficult to counter. Today’s manifestations in our continent are seen most in central and eastern Europe and extend eastwards to the Turkey of Erdogan. In Hungary, Prime Minister Orbán aims to create what he calls an “illiberal democracy”, and anything his party Fidesz can do, Poland’s Law and Justice Party can do as well. A populist almost won the Austrian presidential election. In 2017, there will be a series of elections in the Netherlands, Germany and France; clearly, the populists will do well, but they will be excluded from any resulting coalitions, which will increase their sense of alienation and that there is an establishment conspiracy against them. There appears everywhere to be a search for identity, a sense that the fault lies with the system, and a search for scapegoats—particularly immigrants, the alien in our midst.
How can we counter the adverse effects of populism? This question was tackled in the Global Risks Report 2017, published last month by the World Economic Forum. It highlighted the struggle against disinformation in social networks and the need to invent a new inclusive globalisation. On 6 January, Le Monde, in a very French way, asked the views of six intellectuals. Most concentrated on immigration, but Professor Tony Travers stressed that politicians should be honest with their electorates and refrain from raising false expectations. Tackling the phenomenon of populism needs some institutional means, such as the rule of law and empowerment of civil society, but there could be a Maginot line complex unless one also recognises that underlining this must be a prevailing spirit of democracy.
Finally, perhaps one of the lessons of Brexit is that we must confront what, alas, is the liberal illusion that reason will ultimately and necessarily prevail if the facts and evidence are placed before the citizens. This must now be seen in the context of Trump’s post-truth, for example, on climate change, and Gove’s “Put not your trust in experts”. Pascal had it right: “The heart”—or should I say the gut—“has its reasons, which reason does not understand”. The crowd has come to town and knows what it wants to hear, true or not.
However difficult, we need to prevent a triumph of unreason; if not, the enemies of liberal society will surely prevail. A good start would be to accept our personal failure and our responsibility to press for pragmatism and combat false claims. But elites must abandon any sense of moral superiority over their citizens. I repeat the ending of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his plea for fairness, inclusiveness, openness and tolerance.
Lord Watson of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, four decades ago when we joined what was then the European Economic Community, I was working for the BBC and was asked to script and present a life story of Jean Monnet—“the father of Europe”, as he was then called. I got to know him pretty well. I found him not to be an ideological man but a rather optimistic pragmatist. His consistent theme, however—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop will note this; it is rather like Hobbes—was that he believed deeply that it was not natural for men or nations to unite, and that it would happen only under enormous pressure of necessity. For him, the enormous pressure of necessity that he had experienced in his own lifetime were the two world wars. He drew on that experience to argue his case and he was in many ways very successful.
I have spent a good deal of time over the last two years working on a history of Winston Churchill in 1946, and in particular the two great speeches he made during that year after he had lost office and when he was quite seriously depressed. The first was at Fulton, Missouri—the so-called “Iron Curtain” speech—and, six months later in Zurich, the “Europe arise!” speech. In both cases, rather similar to the Monnet experience, he was driven by a sense that unity and a degree of interdependence were essential not just as a theoretical ideal but in order to deal with overwhelming necessity. In the Fulton speech, he argued that the huge Russian preponderance in Europe and the malign intentions of Joseph Stalin necessitated an unprecedented degree of unity between the United Kingdom, the British Commonwealth, as it then was, and the United States, and that this had to provide a deterrent to Soviet power. He was remarkably successful in that argument, although it was hugely controversial at the time and he was attacked by a great number of people in the United States, including the whole of the Roosevelt family.
Six months later he made the second speech in Zurich. Again, he was driven by this sense of necessity—that unity had to occur because the alternatives were so grim. In particular, faced with the destruction and exhaustion of Europe, he believed that France and Germany had to be reconciled and that those two countries had to take the lead in building what he called a kind of United States of Europe. That first speech in effect triggered a process which led to the Berlin airlift, and certainly greatly facilitated it, and eventually to NATO. The second one was enormously important in enabling the Americans to make the generous initiative of the Marshall Plan and, later on, Jean Monnet with the Coal and Steel Community.
I have said that both those speeches ignited fury and intense opposition—the second one particularly from General de Gaulle. But after decades the habit of interdependence has sort of taken hold. It has also been taken for granted—and this is the cause of its great vulnerability. For today, this habit of interdependence has been, and is being, challenged as we have not seen in decades. As many noble Lords have observed, tomorrow Donald Trump will become President Trump. His intention and direction are towards deals that will, and can, erode the post-war international liberal order—for example, a deal to be forced on Mexico to build a wall and perhaps a deal with Russia that could destabilise the Baltic and erode NATO’s credibility. Whatever Brexit means, it must mean Britain opting out of the project to unite Europe. It will fundamentally challenge the assumption and aspiration of ever-greater unity, breaking a habit and direction of interdependence.
So what can follow from all this? First, division between competing national interests. Two weeks ago, the New Yorker magazine defined very accurately and rather intellectually what Trumpism was all about. It stated that he is about,
“secure borders, economic nationalism, interests-based foreign policy”—
the elements that, taken together, can corrode and erode and eventually destroy a liberal international order.
The second thing that follows is suspicion, distrust and a growing belligerence of language—and language is important. You have only to look at Boris Johnson’s latest verbal folly to understand the perils of inadequate control over language. But it is not just Boris Johnson; we should look at the headlines which sought to encapsulate the Prime Minister’s speech on Tuesday. I shall read out a few of them. The Times stated:
“May to EU: give us a fair deal or you’ll be crushed”.
The Telegraph stated:
“No deal is better than a bad deal”.
The Daily Mirror stated:
“Give us a deal … or we’ll walk”.
The Daily Mail referred to,
“an ultimatum to Brussels”.
The Daily Express stated:
“Deal or no deal … ‘We will leave’”.
The headlines are, of course, more belligerent, and their tonality sharper, than the words used by the Prime Minister. She was much more careful and was feeling and calling for a degree of understanding. But I feel that we have had a warning from what has happened this week and we must take careful note of it.
The third thing that can follow, therefore, is illusion and miscalculation. Let us take just one key example—the outcome on transitional arrangements for the City. Mark Boleat, the policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, said last week that if Britain leaves the EU with no deal, it will still be possible for London to retain its centrality in financial services. He added:
“But this will not just happen. It will require political and business leadership on a scale we have not seen in this country”.
I remind the House that Winston Churchill said in 1946 that we needed to learn the “bitter dear-bought experience” of two world wars and not throw it away. We are in danger now of casting away these lessons of bitter dear-bought experience. If we do so, we will rue it.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, 2016 has not been kind to liberalism. Across the globe, populism and nationalism have taken the reins. In this regard I would like to cite a few examples. In the Philippines, we have a leader who endorses extrajudicial killings. In Myanmar, members of the Rohingya community who are Muslims have been subjected to brutal violence and many have been killed. In Hungary, we have a leader who sees the refugee crisis as nothing more than an opportunity to further his own popularity. There is now a right-wing populist Government in Poland.
In 2017, we will see further challenges from populism and nationalism. In the Dutch general election, the anti-immigrant party is leading the polls. Its leader, Geert Wilders, has openly said that he wants to ban the Holy Koran. In the French presidential election, Marine Le Pen is widely expected to be one of the two candidates to reach the final round of the election in May. She and her National Front party have put forward anti-immigration and anti-Islam policies.
Tomorrow will be the inauguration of the United States President. During the campaign, Donald Trump has undoubtedly prospered by inciting populist ideas. Unfortunately, he made some unsavoury remarks about the Muslims. Notwithstanding this, I am pleased to see that the President-elect has stepped back from the brash tone of the campaign trail. I hope that much of what he said was rhetoric and that he will not put it into practice.
As someone who strongly values our democracy, I believe in freedom of the press. We must, however, take more care. The news media has become increasingly fixated with attention-grabbing, outrageous headlines that sell at the expense of accurate reporting. It is commonplace for the news media to use descriptive terms such as “Islam” or “Muslims” when referring to criminals or any form of terrorism. Indeed, the regular association of Islam with crime and terror is a critical ingredient in spreading Islamophobia. Islam is a religion of peace. My religion forbids suicide bombings or acts of terrorism. It is written in the Holy Koran that,
“whoever kills a soul … it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely”.
A person who commits an act of terrorism should be referred to as a terrorist without reference to his or her religion. In regard to criminal acts, certain sections of the media have associated sex grooming with Islam. Any crime of such a nature has nothing to do with Islam, which does not permit or encourage any such horrible acts, just as there is nothing in Christian values or indigenous British culture that would condone the abuses revealed in the Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris scandals or other similar scandals.
Any xenophobia simply serves to validate populist prejudices. I am a patriotic British Muslim, and I am very proud of the fact that there are more than 1,500 mosques in this country, among other institutions of worship—a true testament to Britain’s openness, tolerance and acceptance. I am patron of five different organisations, both Muslim and non-Muslim, which promote interfaith dialogue, but I am no exception: 82% of British citizens socialise at least monthly with people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds. This is a record that Britain should be proud of.
Across the globe, populists will continue to gain traction by exploiting anxieties about cultural identities, and there will be great challenges this year to the liberal international order to come. However, the best bastion of populism and nationalism is not to pander to it but to offer a versatile and robust defence of ethnic diversity. I have no doubt that the British generosity of spirit and openness will persist through these turbulent times, and as a proud British Muslim, this is the message that I hope will be received in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his timing: tomorrow, under the populist President Trump, we will see American power renewed and reasserted, while this week the Davos elites are holding a wake at the death of their globalisation dream. I entirely support the rules-based international order as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, but that is a million miles away from international liberalism, which I do not support.
Never have I more enjoyed reading the left-wing press—I read them all, every day—with its agonising articles, in the Independent, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the New Statesman, all complaining about the rise of populism. I have them all here. These articles are in four contradictory groups. First, there is absolute outrage that the right has commandeered populism, which has been, ought to be and is the sole preserve of the left; secondly, there is anguish that their enlightened socialism/liberalism has not been understood by the ignorant masses, such as white van man and redneck man; thirdly, populism must be completely denounced now that Brexit and Trump have won; and fourthly—but only in the Guardian, the Independent and the New Statesman—“How can we turn Jeremy Corbyn into a left-wing populist to capture the populist vote?”. I kid you not—I have the articles here.
Populism and populist leaders were to be applauded so long as they were all extreme left, such as Castro, Chavez, Fernandez de Kirchner and Evo Morales. However, as soon as the people in the US and England supported Trump and Brexit, the whole left, elitist, liberal establishment decided that populism is a bad thing and the very devil incarnate. In an article in the New Statesman entitled, “The Strange Death of Liberal Politics”, the left-wing writer John Gray writes:
“As it is being used today, ‘populism’ is a term of abuse applied by establishment thinkers to people whose lives they have not troubled to understand. A revolt of the masses is under way … the ordinary men and women at whom they like to sneer”.
International liberalism is easily identified by looking at its principal proponents, such as those regular Davos attenders, just denounced by the Prime Minister this morning. It says something about the Davos elite when the keynote speaker defending globalisation is that paragon of democratic and human rights—the President of China. It is people like Juncker, with his notorious saying,
“If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go’, and if it’s a No, we will say ‘we continue’”,
or President Obama, interfering in our referendum vote telling us to vote yes, and then the preposterous John Kerry saying that Trump should not have commented on internal German politics. To paraphrase the late, great Willie Whitelaw, he wanders the world “stirring up apathy”.
Tomorrow, we will be rid of the most useless American President I have ever seen in my entire lifetime, whose only legacy is rhetoric. He has withdrawn America from the world stage and left a disastrous vacuum that has been filled by Putin and China. He withdrew troops prematurely from Iraq and allowed ISIL to flourish. He laid down “red lines” on the use of gas in Syria, but did nothing to enforce them when they were breached. He turned a blind eye to Russian hacking for seven years and nine months but suddenly became concerned about it after Hillary lost the election. But never mind, he has his place in history: the next time I visit the United States, I will be able to use the transgender toilets.
I quote President Obama because I consider him to be a perfect example of the liberal international order which is now being routed around the world. But among all the articles I have read in the last two months, crying about the death of international socialism, the odd bit of truth and self-awareness creeps in. Mr Timothy Garton Ash, writing in the Guardian on 13 October, says:
“Liberal internationalists have to own up: we left too many people behind”.
The BBC home affairs editor, writing on 23 December about his visit to Port Talbot, said that people,
“did not think anyone was listening to them. They felt powerless and ignored ... people all over Britain were desperate for a democratic system that gave them some semblance of control over their destiny, in a globalised and interconnected world where decisions often seem to be made by anonymous elites a long way away”.
I say to the noble Lord that there is no challenge to the current international order because I think that its time is over and it is finished.
No one can accuse the Labour Party of not being democratic. I would never dream of doing that, because it is democratic. The Independent of 20 December reported:
“The Labour Party is ‘ramping up’ preparations to relaunch Jeremy Corbyn as a left wing populist”.
It continues that senior party officials believe that his,
“unpolished authenticity could gather support from the same anti-establishment sentiment that has heralded the popularity of … Donald Trump and Nigel Farage”.
So there you have it: populism is a wicked and evil thing if it is a right-wing President Trump but a great thing if it is a socialist Corbyn. Nobody can do hypocrisy better than the left liberal elites.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bruce for setting down this debate and for opening it so effectively. There have been many thought-provoking contributions from noble Lords. In fact, they mostly seem to speak with one voice, and I expect that the Minister, upbeat though she no doubt will be, will share many of the concerns. That is at least something.
We are all acutely aware of the challenges facing us—the United Kingdom, Europe and the world. As a long-ago historian, I never subscribed to the notion that history was coming to a full stop in the late 1990s and that the liberal international order was duly spreading everywhere—a very ahistorical notion. Of course, the historians Trevelyan and Macaulay seemed to believe that history was just a story of progress, and you can see why: 19th-century improvements in living standards, more prosperity, more education and the franchise widening seemed to confirm that. For more people life was no longer nasty, brutal and short, at least in industrialising countries.
But then you have the 1930s and 1940s, with absolutely devastating destruction and appalling genocide. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds passionately pointed out, progress is not inevitable—a liberal internationalist order is not a given. The populist movements of the 1930s followed the terrible economic depression of the 1920s and 1930s, as my noble friend Lord Ashdown pointed out. Noble Lords will have to read his upcoming book to have that spelled out in greater detail.
So surely we should not be surprised that the banking crash of 2008-09 and the ensuing deep recession resulted in political and social shocks, especially as, as the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Risby, pointed out, those who were seen to be the cause were never held to account. If we see the rate and scale of change globally, we should not be surprised if social and political consequences result, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, pointed out.
However, there is clear agreement here that, whatever criticisms people may have of the UN, the EU or other international institutions, it has to be welcome that such transnational bodies were set up. The growth of international law—and international humanitarian law, in particular—since the Second World War and in reaction to it, as my noble friend Lord Thomas outlined, is surely to be hugely welcomed. Again, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds that it is not a given that these should have developed. They are part of a liberal international order that is rules-based and global, and where there is an understanding of universal rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Here, we would generally agree that it matters to all of us that a civil war in Syria is causing immense suffering. That is why it is seen as a rebuff to that international understanding when Donald Trump describes those admitted by Germany not as refugees but as “illegals”.
The United Kingdom Government’s national security strategy of 2015 speaks of a “rules-based international order” which has,
“enabled economic integration and security cooperation to expand”.
The erosion of this, it argues, makes it,
“harder to build consensus and tackle global threats”.
That is clearly true.
There surely can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, rightly argues, that globalisation has brought great benefits. Half the world’s population has been pulled out of extreme poverty—the aim of the millennium development goals. The aim of the sustainable development goals is to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030 and to leave no one behind. That is precisely why our commitment to the 0.7% target for aid internationally is vital.
Most children are in education, fewer mothers die in childbirth, more people have access to sanitation and fewer die in hunger. All that is progress. But what is also clear is that there are huge inequalities between the rich and the poor. Those children who have been through school expect a better life but often cannot get jobs; global businesses are adept at moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, not paying taxes that contribute to the development of the countries in which they derive their income; and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, perceptively speaks of the cultural alienation of endless change. But is this a reason to pull up the drawbridge and become little Englanders or little Americans? In this Chamber, we all, except perhaps for one, clearly believe not. We share the view that this is an argument for greater global co-operation while addressing these deep-seated changes, as argued by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Giddens and Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
So where will our energies go? In the United Kingdom, we will be embroiled now for years in pulling out of the EU. We were always semi-detached, never recognising the EU for what it was—a project for peace, on a continent that has seen war in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and Cyprus in our very recent memory, not just the major wars of the 20th century, to which my noble friends Lord Thomas and Lord Watson referred. Strengthening economic ties made war less likely. Our press endlessly blamed the EU, and our politicians connived at that. No defence was made, and political leaders so often failed to take the leading role in Europe that our size and economy enabled. We were the triumvirate, with France and Germany—what a wasted opportunity.
It is therefore not surprising that people voted as they did. For me, what was amazing was the outpouring after the referendum from those who did get the EU, especially young people. Those who voted leave said overwhelmingly that they would not wish to take a financial hit from doing so, and of course they were told that they would not. If and when they do, what then for populism in the United Kingdom? The expectation would be that people would move further to the right or left. That is a very worrying prospect. With all our energies consumed by these protracted negotiations, how will we address that?
In the US, as Trump stands on the cusp of inauguration, what there? Trump is not consistent, except in being super-sensitive to slights and seeking immediate answers to long-standing problems. BMW will have a supertax on its cars if it makes them in Mexico, so how will Germany respond? What happens if US actions mean that Mexico’s economy implodes? Will the wall keep the Mexicans out? Forget Gove and Trump making a good and beneficial deal for the UK; it is more likely to be beneficial to the US—to its farmers, its businesses and its financial services. We would be negotiating from a place of weakness and smaller size. Even without Trump, the US has long had a tendency to protectionism. What of China, if the US decides on this road? What happens to its economy? Will the Chinese leadership sit by as protectionist policies are put in place? That is unlikely. How ironic to see the Chinese apparently taking the lead on an open global system.
There are so many challenges that need global co-operation; turning inwards cannot be an answer. Nationalism makes us less safe. We cannot hope to tackle global challenges alone, whether it is climate change, terrorism or the 60 million refugees worldwide—the scapegoats of the far right. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, reminds us that we are not so far removed from those refugees. We weaken ourselves by pulling out of the EU, the biggest and strongest bloc in the world, in which we had disproportionate influence. There are already signs that we are desperately looking to the US, even at this moment in its history. But we are not equal partners, as we are in the EU. Read the Chilcot report on Iraq if you doubt that.
Our task has to be to get across that it is in the national interest to work together with other nations and, as my noble friend Lord Ashdown points out, with each other across this nation. Otherwise, nationalism and populism will take us into very dangerous and dark territory indeed. As my noble friend Lord Bruce rightly put it, we need to fight for a country, a region and a world where fairness, openness, inclusion and tolerance predominate.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate. In thinking about the subject, I wondered exactly what direction the debate would go in. From what we have heard today, it has gone in all directions. That is the point about the subject we are dealing with and its associated language.
In considering the challenges posed by populism and nationalism, I want to emphasise, like both right reverend Prelates, that the ingredients of a thriving democracy are not limited to political parties. I say that because of the importance of civil society—I include the Church in that, and in particular trade unions—in our democratic life.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, once said to me that politics in the second half of the 20th century can be summed up as liberal capitalism versus social democracy. The electorate voted for bits of each and Whitehall sorted out the how. That sums up our recent period of history.
Today we are faced with politics and societies which are radically different from those which existed at the beginning of the last century. Citizens today are substantially less likely to be a member of a political party than they were even three decades ago. While the Labour Party has the largest membership of any social democratic party in Europe, and despite its huge recent growth, its numbers are substantially lower than in the past. It is not only political parties suffering falling participation and declining membership; trade unions have seen a loss of members over the past 30 years. In 1979, 13.2 million people were trade unionists in the UK. Today it is approximately 7 million.
It is a global trend and, as union membership has declined, union mergers have taken place—I have taken my part in some of those—and become common across Europe and the US. Although the TUC in Britain represents more than 5.8 million workers in 51 unions, 3.8 million are in just four unions. There is a similar trend in the German TUC.
The culture of unions speaking with one voice—an important aspect of solidarity—has left many in traditional sectors of the economy feeling unrepresented. Their voice and their interests have not been heard.
The reduced membership of traditional representative institutions such as political parties and trade unions—a trend far from unique to Britain—is clearly bound up with major social and economic changes which have taken place over the past three or four decades, as many have said in this debate. The contraction of heavy industry and manufacturing has encouraged a growth in the financial and service sectors. More people are entering higher education than in the past and, of course, women are more prominent in the workplace. All these changes have helped to radically reshape traditional social identities and patterns of working and living, and these have in turn altered political participation and allegiance.
Added to this has been the growth of new forms of social media, which has revolutionised the way people and groups interact and organise, a process that has contributed to the fragmentation and redefinition of political engagement. Across Europe, people are less tribal about politics and less trusting of traditional institutions and elected representatives. Younger people, in particular, are less inclined to vote or become members of political parties. Many today have an a la carte approach to politics, feeling more comfortable supporting organisations on an issue-by-issue basis rather than by committing to membership of a political party with its broader policy platform.
That trend should not necessarily be seen as entirely negative. The fact that pressure groups and campaigning charities can flourish in the 21st century is evidence that there remains an interest and concern for civic life. It is not apathy but the way we deal with people’s concerns that really matters. However, single-issue groups cannot perform the critical function of integrating various interests into a general political programme, and then campaigning to win majority support for it, which is the task of a political party—a task that the changing nature of political participation has made more difficult than ever.
The realisation that society is changing and that people are engaging in politics differently from in the past is one of the biggest challenges. In the UK we have seen a long-term trend of declining vote share for the two main parties and lower voter turnout. Turnout at elections has fallen from historical highs. General election turnout reached its peak in 1950. Then, we had 83.9% of people voting. In 2001 it had fallen to 59.4%, and although turnout has slightly increased in elections held since then, in 2015, as we all know, it was 66.1%, which is well below the historical average.
Of course, 2015 saw the election of a Conservative Government, with 330 seats, with 36.9% of the popular vote, giving them a working majority of 12. In 1964, Harold Wilson and the Labour Party achieved 317 seats with a 44.1% share of the vote. As we have heard, in 2015 we saw UKIP come third with 12.6%, but only one seat. The Greens won their highest ever share of the vote with 3.8%, but only one seat. Of course, the Liberal Democrats had their worst result since they were founded and held just eight of their previous 57 seats. Devolution and the rise of nationalist parties, in particular the surge of the SNP, have made it virtually impossible for the two major parties to achieve an overall majority.
As we heard in the debate, apart from those longer-term trends, the global financial crisis has brought not only economic dislocation and disruption, but an even greater challenge to the established political parties in most of Europe. The fight over the centre ground has been replaced by populist rhetoric from both ends of the political spectrum—from the left, Greece’s Syriza and Spain’s Podemos; from the right, our own UKIP and France’s National Front.
All centre parties have struggled to respond to the forces of globalisation but, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, the answer lies in a social and economic reform agenda that is both achievable and perceived to be so—an agenda that faces up to and addresses the inequalities in our society, both here and abroad. It is, as we have heard, also about restoring trust in politics. I believe we all have a responsibility to address the questions I pose; I address them not simply to the Minister. All parties have this responsibility. What has been done to clean up politics, including taking big money out of the system? How do we modernise and improve voter engagement through our political parties? What do we do to overcome the apparent gap between activists and voters—a gap that appears to be widening every day?
On interpretation of words, Nick Clegg wrote an amazing piece in the London Evening Standard saying: “Blaming liberalism for the world’s political turmoil is just too easy”. He argues that the “rush to condemn liberalism” was evidenced by Theresa May declaring herself against “laissez-faire liberalism”, and John McDonnell attacking the “neo-liberal straitjacket”. Liberally swinging between small “l” and big “L”, Nick Clegg reduced a debate on political economy to one about the Liberal Democrats. We have had a bit of that today, to be honest. He pointed to others in Europe, in particular targeting his partners in the coalition Government, for the crisis in confidence in politics and the political class. However, no mention was made of his singing apology for promising one thing and doing another. That is what trust is about: being committed to delivering for the people you seek to represent.
Of course, we have seen our biggest attack on civil society through the coalition Government attacking trade unions. The biggest breach was attacking legal aid and access to justice. These attacks have continued in relation to civil society, with the attacks on trade union political funds.
If we do not develop and deliver credible alternatives to economic, employment and social challenges, the risk is that voters across Europe will abandon mainstream politics altogether for the ugly populism of the ultra-right.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations offered to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on giving the House this opportunity to discuss and reflect on these extremely important issues. It is also a special day simply because it is the last Thursday of Liberal Democrat debates this Session. A fitting way to conclude is to reflect on these issues. I shall seek to echo that mood of reflection and rhetorical questioning that we have heard from around the House today.
The liberal international order, also called the rules-based international order, describes the system brought into being by the United States, the UK and other allies and partners in response to the horrors of the Second World War. I was born after the Second World War, but my father fought in it. I grew up in that atmosphere of recognising how we had to work together to avoid such a horror ever occurring again.
At its core, it is a system defined by economic openness; democracy and the rule of law; respect for human rights; and rules-based relations between states. It has become formalised over time through multilateral organisations such as the UN, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the web of international conventions, laws, agreements and norms which shape and regulate relations between nation states. This multilateral architecture has been underpinned by the economic and military power of the United States and its security alliances, including NATO, which together cover some 50 countries around our world. The democratic, rules-based international model was further strengthened by the collapse of the Soviet Union, its ideology and its client states.
Not all countries are democracies, but all countries which have signed up to the UN charter have committed to a set of binding principles on human rights, rule of law, peaceful resolution of disputes and collective action to solve problems. Multilateral institutions and democratic values are now central to discussions of good governance.
Since the Second World War, this system of laws, institutions, norms and values has helped us all to promote an exceptional period of economic growth and democratic transition across the world. It has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and spread political and economic freedoms.
The increasingly deep integration of trade, investment, people and information— otherwise described as globalisation—has been a particular feature of global growth during the past 25 years. The global economy has more than doubled in size since 1989. In 1981, almost half the world’s population lived in extreme poverty—I reflected on this as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was speaking. Today, that figure is less than one in 10. She was right to draw attention to the improvements that have been made and must continue to be made.
This economic transformation has been accompanied by extraordinary political change. In the past 30 years, the number of democracies has doubled. Working together, countries have improved the lives of many people around the world—from tackling human rights abuses, most recently on issues such as sexual violence and modern slavery, to prosecuting war crimes and genocide and finding solutions to global threats such as climate change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, reminded us that, not long ago, some were suggesting that we had reached “the end of history”. As she made clear, that was a somewhat dramatic way of saying that the liberal international order looked set to remain unchallenged. It is now clear that this was complacent; the noble Baroness was right. Today, as many noble Lords have indicated, there are more challenges to the rules-based order and more concerns about the merits of this model than for many years.
The rise of China has led some to argue that economic development does not need, or automatically lead to, democracy. The gradual historic shift of economic power from developed to emerging economies has led others to question whether the current institutional architecture is still fit for purpose, and whether the new, emerging economies that have reaped the benefits of openness are now committed to shouldering some of the responsibilities of leadership. All this comes at a time when the continuing impact of the 2008 financial crisis has undermined the faith of electorates, not just in the competence of Governments but in the benefits of open economies. Free trade is stagnating. Protectionism is on the increase.
Alongside these economic changes, the world today feels more dangerous and more volatile. Political freedoms are under threat in some of our newer democracies and independent nation states. A nationalist rhetoric which seeks to blame others has resurfaced. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us very clearly of some of the threats we face. For the first time since the Second World War, one European country—Russia—has forcibly annexed the territory of another. Russia continues to undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine, in contravention of its obligations. Russia is also supporting, in President Assad of Syria, a leader who has waged a brutal war against his people.
In the wider Middle East and across parts of Africa and south Asia, the nation state itself is under threat from violent, ruthless, non-state actors such as Daesh and al-Qaeda. These groups have an entirely different vision of a future world order, coupled with a determination to use terror globally to achieve their aims. Global conflict, most notably in the Middle East and Africa, has led to more than 60 million people being displaced from their homes—the highest number since 1945. These humanitarian catastrophes have put pressure on generous neighbours, aid agencies and the international system committed to giving a safe haven to refugees.
All these challenges are increasing the pressure on political systems, and raising fears for many that their children’s lives will be worse than their own. As parents, we know that parents strive to make improvements—that the future should be better for their family. While recognising these political challenges, we must be careful in our use of the terms populism and nationalism. As noble Lords have said, they are broad terms, interpreted in different ways. Popular discontent takes different forms from country to country. So-called populist or nationalist parties or movements can indeed appear, as we have been reminded today, on the left as well as the right, and may be responding to particular domestic circumstances and issues. Some are focused primarily on economic inequality. Some use xenophobic language, attempting to blame complex problems on others. Others are led by charismatic leaders with a personal political vision and agenda.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set out in her recent speeches, including today in Davos—I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Tugendhat, Lady Stroud and Lady Finn for referring to that speech in more detail—she has identified that the underlying problem is that many people in the developed world feel that the gains from global, open economies have not been shared equitably in recent years. People fear that globalisation has enriched corporations and elites and that it has opened the door to unfettered competition which has driven the decline of traditional industries and regions and destroyed jobs.
This Government argue that inequality and regional decline are not, and must not become, inevitable consequences of globalisation. We believe that competition can drive the efficiency, innovation and growth we need to build our prosperity. I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, who talked about big data. That was a refreshingly different speech this afternoon—it just shows what the House of Lords can do. Furthermore, we must remember that more jobs are now lost to technological advancement and automation than to off-shoring, for example.
However, we all, in Parliament and in government, have a responsibility to assist those who have lost out. In my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s words, we will be:
“A confident global Britain that doesn’t turn its back on globalisation but ensures the benefits are shared by all”.
In a changing world, we can shape both domestic and foreign policy to help people be better prepared to deal with the challenges of rapid economic change.
This also means that we must be robust in countering the xenophobia that is a feature of some populist and nationalist rhetoric, while also recognising the balance that must be struck on immigration, to which so many noble Lords have rightly referred. Immigration is important in developed countries: it brings us economic benefits, innovation and a diversity of skills and experience. However, we must ensure that the rate of immigration is at a pace which means that those arriving can be appropriately integrated into our communities.
Strengthening the rules-based international order and the institutions and values that underpin it remains the best way to ensure our collective security and prosperity, and to advance the UK interest. However, we also recognise that systems and institutions cannot remain unchanged. In a changing political and economic landscape, we need to look carefully at how institutions and rules can adapt to maintain legitimacy. That is why, for example, we joined the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It is also why the UK supports enlarging the permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations to include important, rising global powers, such as India. We believe that emerging powers have benefited from the openness, transparency and rules of the existing order. The last 70 years have shown that this international order can be flexible and effective in adapting to profound political change and finding a way to reconcile political and cultural diversity. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sheikh for reminding us that it is essential that we respect that cultural diversity.
In this context, I come to the subject of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. Some have ventured to suggest that the decision by UK voters last year may be part of the challenge to the current order but that interpretation would be fundamentally incorrect. As we have said many times and as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear again in her speech at Lancaster House on Tuesday this week, the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union should on no account be interpreted as a rejection of the UK’s historic global role, of the institutions of the rules-based international order or of the universal values which we and our European partners champion. As is often said, we may be leaving the European Union as an institution but we are not leaving our European partners. We remain fundamentally committed to them all. We are not and never will be an inward-looking country; we have been and will remain a global Britain.
We recognise the extraordinary achievements of the European project in bringing peace and prosperity to a devastated and divided continent. We have Members in this House who have played a key role in that achievement. We will be embarking on a new kind of relationship with Europe but we will remain,
“reliable partners, willing allies and close friends”,
of our European colleagues. We will continue to work together to support an open, rules-based order that serves our shared values. We will retain the joint goal of shared prosperity, security and stability in our European neighbourhood and beyond. As has been reflected upon so often today, on many issues—such as the promotion and protection of human rights globally—it is vital that the UK remains the closest of partners in promoting human rights around the world, in our own country and within the European context.
I turn briefly to the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump. Much mention has been made of him, some of it not entirely flattering. Some outside this House have been tempted to draw early and potentially incorrect conclusions about the future direction of US foreign policy. A change in the US Administration invariably impacts on foreign policy, but the complex system of alliances and multilateral commitments which the US has supported since 1945, through different Administrations, is strong and enduring. Throughout our history, the UK has worked successfully with Republican and Democratic presidents to advance our mutual interests and tackle shared challenges. We have not always agreed, regardless of the party in power in Washington. However, we have always understood that nothing would fundamentally shake our strong bond based on history, mutual interests and shared values. That remains, so we expect that this will be the case with President-elect Trump. The US was instrumental in creating the rules-based order, including NATO, the cornerstone of European security, so we look forward to continuing our close co-operation with the US both to champion that order and to demonstrate active leadership in the UN and other institutions.
What can the UK do? The rules-based international order is clearly fundamental to our security and prosperity. We will face challenges. Noble Lords have reflected carefully on them. However, I am confident that, working with our key friends and allies and with the support of British parliamentarians in both Houses, we can navigate the development of a more resilient, inclusive international order over the coming years in line with our values and interests. The UK will continue to champion this system by promoting, with renewed vigour, the United Nations as the primary pillar of the rules-based system. We must remain passionate in our defence of its crucial role and mission, while continuing to seek reform through working closely with the new and most welcome Secretary-General, António Guterres. We will continue to work collaboratively with all partners to defeat global challenges, including terrorism, climate change and cybercrime, to which reference has been made. We will be robust in our defence against attacks on the rules-based order by those states and non-state actors who think that somehow the rules do not apply to them. They should, and they will. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and security policy, and following our departure from the European Union we will champion open economies and free trade. We will maintain our commitment to spend 0.7% GNI on development aid and 2% GDP on defence. We will continue to take a compassionate and pragmatic approach to global problems such as the migrant crisis, including supporting refugees in their region and seeking peaceful settlements in conflict-affected countries such as Syria, Libya and Yemen.
I am being reminded of the time. The UK remains an open, progressive, democratic country whose objectives are best served by a rules-based international order. That world order has delivered huge benefits. It remains robust, but it faces many threats. We all have a duty to continue to defend it and to ensure that it is in good shape for many years to come. This has been an important debate. I am finishing slightly early because otherwise I appreciate that the mover of the debate would have no opportunity to respond. I am glad that he raised this issue today.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very courteous and focused reply. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate, which was thoughtful and wide-ranging. The right reverend Prelates gave us thoughtful and philosophical contributions which added considerably to the debate. I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating her commitment to 0.7%, and I am comfortable with 2% for defence as well. I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that as a consequence of the depreciation of the pound, our aid budget is already being sufficiently cut because of its reduced purchasing power and adverse trade relations with Africa, so we need to maintain it.
The particular point on populism was about addressing the interests of ordinary voters. There is no doubt at all that the populist and nationalist movements have done that very effectively, but I suggest to the House—I think the debate concurred with this—that it is liberal values and liberal institutions that will deliver the answers to those people. We have acknowledged our failings and our complicity in giving them disaffection, but it is up to us now to unite on measures which will show how liberal values can bring them back into the frame and address their concerns. I believe this debate has been a useful and constructive contribution to that.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 November 2016 be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this order, laid in draft before the House on 22 November 2016, will bring into effect three revised codes of practice issued under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call PACE from now on: Code C, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under PACE; Code H, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under terrorism provisions; and Code D, which concerns the identification of suspects by witnesses and biometric data, for example, fingerprints, DNA and photographs. I will briefly describe what the PACE codes are, how these revised codes come before us today and outline the changes they introduce.
For England and Wales, the statutory provisions of PACE set out the core framework of police powers to detect and investigate crime, and require the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. The eight accompanying codes of practice, A to F, do not create powers but provide rules and procedures for the police to follow when exercising their powers. Together, PACE and the codes establish important safeguards for individuals, which are designed to strike a balance between the need for police to have powers to tackle crime on the one hand and the need for safeguards for suspects and other members of the public on the other. In order to maintain this balance, we regularly update the codes—for example, as we change primary legislation—in the light of new decisions by the courts and to promote developments in operational policing practice.
The three codes before us today were published in draft format in March 2016 for statutory consultation in accordance with Section 67 of PACE. The consultation, which was also open to the public, ran for eight weeks, and the bodies that the Secretary of State is required to consult in accordance with Section 67(4) of PACE, and others, were invited to comment. These others included the Crown Prosecution Service, Liberty—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, here today—Justice and the Youth Justice Board. The drafts, together with an invitation to the public at large to respond, were also published on GOV.UK. A total of 18 responses were received, which is normal for this type of consultation.
In accordance with Section 67 of PACE, the revised codes were laid before this House and in another place together with the draft order and Explanatory Memorandum. Yesterday, the order was approved in Committee in another place, and subject to the order being approved by this House, the three codes will come into force 21 days after the date the order is signed.
The main revision to PACE Code C is to expressly permit the use of live-link communications technology for interpreters. The changes enable interpretation services to be provided by interpreters based at remote locations and allow access to be shared by forces throughout England and Wales. This will avoid interpreters having to travel to individual police stations, and improve the availability of interpreters for all languages. By reducing delays in the investigation, it will enable a more streamlined and cost-effective approach to the administration of justice. The revisions include safeguards for suspects to ensure, as far as practicable, that the fairness of proceedings are not prejudiced by the interpreter not being physically present with the suspect. The provisions therefore require the interpreter’s physical presence unless specified conditions are satisfied and allow live-link interpretation.
Revisions to Code C also reflect the amendment to PACE made by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 that defines a “juvenile” for the purpose of detention under PACE as someone under the age of 18, rather than under the age of 17. This resulted from a government review of the way in which 17 year-olds were treated under PACE and the codes. The review concluded that the age at which a person should be treated as an adult under PACE should be raised from 17 to 18. This accords with the age-related jurisdiction of youth courts and other criminal justice legislation applicable to children.
New provisions also support Section 38(6) of PACE, which requires juveniles who are not released on bail after being charged to be moved to local authority accommodation pending appearance at court. The revisions point out that the certificate given to the court in accordance with Section 38(7) must show why the juvenile was kept at a police station and require these cases to be monitored and supervised by an inspector or above. Separate measures in the Policing and Crime Bill ensure that outstanding provisions of PACE that continue to treat 17 year-olds as adults are amended.
New provisions in Code C permit an appropriate adult to be removed from interview if they prevent proper questioning. When a suspect who is a juvenile or a vulnerable adult is interviewed, the code requires that an independent adult, known as an “appropriate adult”, be called to help. Their job is to help ensure that the suspect understands what is happening and why, and that they are able to exercise their rights and entitlements under PACE and the codes. These new provisions are necessary to ensure consistency with the existing provisions, which have been in Code H since 2006, and they are modelled on paragraph 6.9 of Code C concerning the removal of a solicitor from an interview if they prevent proper questioning. Before an appropriate adult can be removed, an additional safeguard in both codes requires the inspector or superintendent who is called on to determine whether they should be excluded to remind the adult about their role and advise them of the concerns about their behaviour. That advice, if accepted, would then enable the appropriate adult to remain.
The changes to Code C are mirrored in Code H, as applicable, for persons detained under terrorism provisions. This ensures consistency in the provisions that are common to both codes.
In Code D, eye-witness and witness identification procedures are updated to take account of significant changes and developments in case law and police practice, and to address operational concerns raised by the police. Revised video identification provisions clarify and confirm the identification officer’s discretion to use “historic” images of the suspect; to regulate the presence of solicitors at witness viewings; and to direct others—police officers and police civilian staff—to implement any arrangements for identification procedures. The investigating officer’s responsibility concerning the viewing of CCTV and similar images by a witness other than an eye-witness is also clarified.
Other revisions to Code D reflect amendments made by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to PACE concerning the retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles and samples. Revisions to all three codes also highlight the need to check all sources of relevant information in order to establish a detainee’s identity; enable officers to use electronic pocket books and other devices in order to make records required by the Codes; clarify those who are not eligible to act as the appropriate adult for children under 18 and for mentally vulnerable adults; and highlight the requirement under Section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to separate children from adult detainees in police stations and other places of detention by including a link to College of Policing guidance on this matter.
Minor typographical and grammatical corrections have been made, and out-of-date references updated.
The revisions strike a balance between the need to safeguard the rights of suspects while supporting the operational flexibility of the police to investigate crime. They are being introduced to bring codes C, D and H in line with current legislation and to support operational police practice. The revised codes provide invaluable guidance to both police and the public on how the police should use their powers fairly, efficiently and effectively. I commend the order and urge noble Lords to support it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the effect of the order before the House this afternoon. I say at the outset that the Opposition support the order, and that we must always carefully consider these matters and strive to strike the right balance between giving the police and other law enforcement agencies the tools, guidance and procedures to do their job effectively and keep citizens safe, when we are balancing the rights of citizens and ensuring that the rights of suspects and witnesses are protected. This is very much my thinking in how I approach the order and similar matters when they come before this House.
I have a number of questions to ask the Minister and hope that she will be able to answer me today—but, if she cannot, I will of course be very happy for her to write me. I turn first to Code C and the ability to permit the use of live-link communication technology for interpreters. This will allow for interpreters to be based at remote locations and for their services to be used by a number of police forces without the need for travel. I can see how this will help the police by speeding up their investigations. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this facility will be used only in respect of suspects, or will the police be making use of it in respect of witnesses? Is that the intention of the change? Is it envisaged by the department that this will become the norm; will it be used on only limited occasions; or is it somewhere between the two? How will the test of fairness to the suspect be assessed, and what role will there be for the suspect’s solicitor in making representations on the appropriateness of the use of remote translation services?
I move on to the provision to enable an appropriate adult be removed from an interview if they prevent the proper questioning of a subject. An appropriate adult is used when a juvenile or vulnerable adult is being interviewed. They have a specific role: to help the person understand what is happening and to protect their rights under law and the relevant codes. These individuals do a very important job in the justice system, but their role is not to prevent the questioning of suspects. However, there can be cases where there is a very fine line between what could be deemed fair practice and action that could be determined as breaching somebody’s rights. Will there be a role for the suspect’s solicitor in the process of determining whether an appropriate adult should be removed? What would happen if it was viewed that an appropriate adult should be present but, for whatever reason, it was thought that the appropriate adult present at the time had overstepped the line and needed to be removed? Would the interview be suspended until such time as another person could be identified to fulfil that role?
In respect of the electronic pocket books for use by police officers, can the noble Baroness say a little more about the trials that have taken place? It is important that police officers have access to technology that makes their jobs and the application of the law easier and allows for the efficient administration of justice to be done in a timely manner, but we must always be confident that the appropriate safeguards are in place. Very clever people invent, develop and create all sorts of devices, and where they can be used to fight crime, that is welcome—but we must be satisfied that there is no possibility that these devices can be tampered with to produce an inaccurate or untrue picture of what has happened.
There is also the question of the development of technology, which does not stand still. Because something cannot be done at the moment does not mean that it cannot be done in future. How does the noble Baroness plan to ensure that technological developments do not get ahead of the procedures before the House today and the practices of the police and other law enforcement agencies?
In respect of the changes to Code D that alter the way in which witness identification is undertaken, the change effectively deletes the old annexes A and E. We need a bit more evidence for why that is necessary, so I hope that the Minister will give a full explanation when she responds. With those questions, I say again that we are happy to support the order.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, may I say how much I support the revision of the code of practice? I cannot emphasise enough how welcome these codes were when they were introduced in 1984. Before that, a great deal of time was taken up in the criminal courts with what was called the voir dire—a trial within a trial—to determine the admissibility of police interviews and alleged confessions, and the content of what was said.
I recall, some years after these codes had come into practice and were commonplace in this country, being in Hong Kong, where a confession was produced. I was told by my client that in order to sign it, the interviewing officer had stamped on his hand. I said, “Tell me another one”, and he then pointed to his signature at the beginning of the statement, where he had simply signed in characters, and the very squiggly, spidery signature that appeared at the end. There was a great deal of truth in what he had said, perhaps assisted by the fact that the interviewing officer had committed suicide between taking the statement and the actual trial.
Noble Lords can see that what goes on in the police station is extremely important. The codes of practice that were introduced were an excellent way of making sure there was fairness all round. I am grateful to the Government for continuing to update them and to look at how technology can help protect both the suspect and, of course, the interviewing police officers, against whom allegations of all sorts were made in the past. We very much welcome this.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, I have just one brief question. Suspects under the age of 18 are to be looked after by the local authority. What security measures will be taken to ensure that they are safe and do not get away?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for their questions. Perhaps I can deal with the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, first while it is fresh in my mind. The usual safeguards for young children in detention would be employed to ensure that a young person did not get away.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the use of live link and whether it would become the norm or used only on limited occasions. The police will use the live-link technology only in certain circumstances judged on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the representation given to the suspect by an appropriate adult and a solicitor. The noble Lord also asked whether the facility would be used only in relation to suspects. I can answer in the affirmative yes, not for the witnesses. He asked about safeguards being ensured and the role of the solicitor. Solicitors must be asked if they wish to make representations to be considered by the police. If there is any doubt the inspector must authorise.
If the noble Lord would like me to go through the conditions, I will do so. Before interview, the suspect’s solicitor, where legal advice is requested, and an appropriate adult for any juvenile or vulnerable adult, must be asked about their views on live-link interpretation. The representations for the interpreter to be present may be made at any time before and during the interview. If there is any doubt about the suspect’s ability to adequately cope with the live-link arrangements during the interview, the physical presence of the interpreter will be required, unless an inspector, having considered the circumstances—in particular, the availability of an interpreter, representations from the suspect’s solicitor, the appropriate adult’s impact on the suspect and the evidential implications—authorises live-link interpretation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
It is very kind of the Minister to give way. She said that it would not be the case for witnesses, but could she explain why? At an interview, the witness and the suspect might both need interpreters, so I understand that you might want to bring the live link in to speed things up. If you have a witness with the same language problems—I think that the Minister can see the point that I am making.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understand the noble Lord’s point, but at the moment it is just for suspects. It may well be that we will consider future codes that will extend it to witnesses—but not at this time.
The noble Lord also asked about the use of electronic pocket books and recording devices—and he took a very pragmatic approach to the need to move on with technology. He made the point about what happens if there are errors. I suppose that that is a risk in any method of recording. It is not good practice to have errors, but we are human. The likelihood is just as risky in electronic recording as it is in written recording.
In fact, the PACE codes apply only to suspects—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who should have taken this question, is nodding. I do not know why I did not think of that. Those codes apply only to suspects and not to witnesses.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I made the point about technological developments. I am conscious that we might not be able to do something today but that people are very clever and invent all sorts of things in future—so how are we going to keep up to speed with those sorts of changes? What does the department do?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The code talks about electronic recording devices. I would imagine that within the code that in some way attempts to keep up with technology.