House of Commons

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

Monday 10 July 2017

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What discussions he has had with local authorities and the devolved Administrations on reserve centre closures; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

At the first Defence questions of the new Parliament, may I remind the House of my interest, namely that I am in my 29th year of service in the Army Reserve?

The Ministry of Defence regularly holds discussions with local authorities and the devolved Administrations on reserves. That includes engaging with all stakeholders on sites that are earmarked for closure or for the establishment of new reserve units. The release of sites no longer required by the Ministry of Defence will free up land for new housing and raise money to reinvest in our armed forces.

[Jim McMahon]

Like the Minister, my father was a Territorial Army reservist, so I know the importance of the reserve. Would it not make more sense, rather than jumping to a closure and then contacting the devolved Administrations, to have a pre-consultation to make sure that where facilities are being reviewed across the board—ambulance stations, fire stations and so on—we have a single estates strategy for public sector assets?

[Mark Lancaster]

Of course, we do engage with local authorities to the best of our ability, but no final decisions have been made in the Army Reserve Refine programme. It would therefore be premature to engage with local authorities to say which, if any, Army Reserve centres are closing. However, that piece of work on the reserves brings good news as well, so I am delighted to take this opportunity to announce the creation of two new infantry battalions as a result of it: 4th Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, whose headquarters will be at Redhill, and 8 Rifles Battalion, whose headquarters will be at Bishop Auckland.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

May I offer my hon. Friend very warm congratulations on his promotion to Minister for the armed forces? As a distinguished and senior officer in the reserve, is he not perfectly placed to make decisions on reserve centre closures?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his warm words. As his former Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department for International Development, I know only too well of his contribution to the comprehensive approach during his tenure there. It is rare as a Minister to be appointed to a Department one actually knows something about. On that basis, I am delighted to be here. It is great to be in this position and I hope to use any experience I have.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

May I, too, congratulate the Minister on seemingly knowing what he is talking about?

In recent days I became aware, via the office of the deputy lord lieutenant of the county of Dunbartonshire that he had informed the provost of West Dunbartonshire, as the local government’s civic leader, that armed forces veterans’ day would not take place due to there being no capacity in the armed forces to deliver it. As the Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, it gives me grave cause for concern that veterans in local families in West Dunbartonshire, including those in my own family who have served, will not be given the appropriate thanks by their local community. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, advise me and other Members of the House whose local communities may have been unable to hold veterans’ day that this will not happen again?

[Mark Lancaster]

Armed Forces Day has become quite a success, so I am disappointed to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I visited Bangor in Northern Ireland and my colleagues have visited other places in the United Kingdom. The Armed Forces Day centring on Liverpool this year was a particular success. However, I am concerned by what he says and would like to think that all our units, whether Army Reserve units, Regular units or cadet forces, will do whatever they can to support Armed Forces Day. I will certainly look into what he has said.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that a crucial criterion when considering dismissing or abandoning reserve centres is to ensure that our reserve centres are as close as possible to the reserve soldiers who will man them, so that they do not have to travel far?

[Mark Lancaster]

Of course, our reserves have become very much a success over recent years. Over the last year, some 5,000 extra reserves were recruited—an increase of some 5% on the Army Reserve of 2016. One of the great challenges we face is to ensure that the footprint is equal across the country. That is why the Army Reserve Refine piece of work that is going on is so important. One of the principal aims is to ensure that the footprint is even across the country.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Abertillery in my constituency is home to the 211 Battery, which has the reserve’s only unmanned air systems operators. I understand that the Department is scrapping the Black Hornet unmanned aerial vehicle, but is still using the Desert Hawk model. Will that have an impact on the successful and popular Blaenau Gwent-based unit?

[Mark Lancaster]

As I said earlier, I think that the reserves Refine piece is overwhelmingly a success story. I am sorry that I am not currently in a position to give the House the final details, but I will go out of my way to ensure that all Members are informed in advance of any changes in their local units.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to a footprint for the reserve forces. That is terribly important, because, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), they have to live near their bases. Reserve centres are also very useful as the outward face of the British Army throughout the nation where there is not otherwise any military presence. They are often co-located with, for instance, cadet battalions, and they have a huge usefulness quite apart from their military usefulness. Does it not concern my hon. Friend that what he described as a footprint may become a toehold?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am quite confident that at the end of the reserves Refine process, the footprint will still be substantial across the United Kingdom. We are not considering major closures across the UK, and I would hate to imply that that is the correct impression. Indeed, today I announced the creation of two new reserve units. I think that, as we continue to increase the size of our reserves, the story is a positive one.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

2. What contribution the Government are making to NATO’s reassurance measures in Estonia and Poland.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

6. What contribution the Government are making to NATO’s reassurance measures in Estonia and Poland.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)]

The United Kingdom is supporting NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence, which is designed to defend our allies and deter our adversaries. About 800 UK personnel based on armoured infantry form the core of our battlegroup in Estonia. In Poland, a British reconnaissance squadron is part of the US-led battlegroup. Both deployments are defensive but combat-capable.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomed, as I did, the congressional vote that renewed the United States’ commitment to article 5. Will my right hon. Friend say a little about Britain’s commitment to it, particularly in relation to units such as the Estonian armed forces, alongside whom I—and many other Members—had the privilege to serve in, for instance, Afghanistan?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

It is good that both Congress and, now, the President have committed themselves to article 5, the most important principle of NATO. In Washington on Friday, Secretary Mattis and I agreed to continue our work together to modernise NATO and give it more focus on counter-terrorism and hybrid warfare. As my hon. Friend has said, one of the reasons that our contribution to the enhanced Forward Presence is based in Estonia is indeed our good experience of working with Estonian forces in Helmand, Afghanistan.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Joint military exercises in the Suwalki gap are obviously very welcome, as are rotational deployments of troops in Poland, but when will the United Kingdom use its senior position in NATO to press that organisation for a permanent NATO base in eastern Poland?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Our defence relationship with Poland is close. Since the beginning of 2016 I have met Minister Macierewicz at least five times, and we aim to sign a defence treaty with Poland later this year. NATO, of course, already has a small permanent base in Poland, the Multinational Corps Northeast headquarters in Szczecin, to which the United Kingdom contributes personnel.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I very much support what the Defence Secretary has said about the contribution that we are making in respect of NATO in Estonia and Poland, but having spoken to a couple of constituents at the weekend, I believe that the Government, and all of us, have a job of work to do to explain to the British public the importance of NATO and the continuing need for us to be vigilant in eastern Europe.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I absolutely agree. We need to keep restating the case for NATO, and it is sometimes sad to see the case for it being questioned. We must restate its importance. It was good to hear the President reinforce that in his speech in Warsaw on Friday, but I think that all of us in the House have a responsibility to explain why our troops are being deployed to Poland and Estonia, why our Typhoons are based in Romania this summer, and why we are committing Royal Navy ships to the standing maritime groups this year.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

One of the biggest threats facing all NATO member states is the growing sophistication and volume of cyber-attacks. What collective action are the Secretary of State and his colleagues taking to counter that threat?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

As I said, Secretary Mattis and I have agreed that NATO needs to prioritise its work on cyber and other forms of hybrid warfare, which is just as important as its conventional deployments. We are now doing that; that work was agreed in principle at the Warsaw summit a year ago, and we continue to urge other members to do that, too. In addition, we have offered to put Britain’s offensive cyber capabilities at the service of NATO, if required.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

These deployments are certainly defensive, as the Secretary of State stated, but they will be represented as offensive by the Russians. What measures are the Government taking to keep open a line of communication with the Russians, to make it absolutely clear to them that this would not be happening but for their own conduct in Ukraine and elsewhere?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

NATO is, as my right hon. Friend knows, a defensive alliance and these deployments are defensive in nature. It is important in respect of Russia that we explain these deployments and the purpose of them, and we are transparent about the number of personnel and the units involved. To that end, we already have machinery in place whereby our vice-chief of the defence staff has regular discussions with his opposite number to explain the deployments and ensure that there is no misunderstanding about them.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

As this is the first Defence questions of the new Parliament, may I begin by putting on record the Scottish National party’s welcome for the announcement on Type 26s, and also welcome the fact that Scotland is, of course, the only part of the UK that can build these complex ships?

On the issue of cyber, what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of what the President of America tweeted at the weekend on the idea of an impenetrable cyber security unit? What would that mean for a country such as Estonia, for NATO, and for the United Kingdom?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I will take for what it is the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for Type 26, on which there is a later question on the Order Paper. Of course, if the SNP had had its way on the nuclear deterrent we would not be needing the Type 26 frigates at all, because they are designed to protect a deterrent that the SNP voted against.

We have cyber expertise in this country, as do Estonia and other countries inside the alliance; we now need to bring that expertise together to counter the cyber-attacks made by our adversaries.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to reduce rates of depression and suicide among former British military personnel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

We ask much of our brave service personnel and recognise that service life can cause stress, so we are absolutely committed to providing the necessary mental health and welfare support both during the time of service and on retirement.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but can he tell us more about the Veterans’ Gateway and how it will work alongside the young royals’ charity, the Heads Together campaign, to support veterans with mental health problems?

[Mr Ellwood]

There are 2.5 million veterans in this country and the majority make the transition to civilian life without a problem, but some do not, and that is no fault of their own. There are over 500 main charities providing support, including the one my hon. Friend mentions. The Veterans’ Gateway is that initial portal to avoid the confusion of where to turn to. So I welcome this initiative, and would love to take credit for it myself, but I cannot as it was down to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who is now the armed forces Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Very good intra-office arrangements; splendid.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

We all owe a great debt of gratitude to those armed forces charities that work so hard supporting former military personnel facing depression and other conditions, but why will the Government not commit to the Royal British Legion’s “Count Them In” campaign so that the charities, the statutory services and everyone else can know where former military personnel live?

[Mr Ellwood]

This is down to a data issue. We are putting together a veterans register, but there is a Data Protection Act issue. We work with Cobseo—the confederation of service charities—and we will be establishing a veterans’ board as well, to make sure that we are meeting the needs of our veterans.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

LIBOR funding has been a real lifeline for many charities across the UK, including in Plymouth, where we recently secured £80,000 for a veterans care navigation service. Beyond 2018 that LIBOR funding dries up, however; what thought has the Minister given to getting veterans care on to a sustainable model, so that we can do our duty by those who serve?

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in this area. He is right to say that the LIBOR funding has been so useful in providing sources of revenue for a number of key projects, and we need to ensure that that continues. I would like to highlight one of those projects, Combat Stress, whose 24/7 phone line has been paid for by LIBOR funds, providing an important service.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) about voluntary groups, I would like to mention two wonderful groups in my constituency—the Veterans Association UK and Veterans in Communities—that do wonderful work with ex-service personnel. What guarantee can the Government give that they will support such organisations in the future?

[Mr Ellwood]

These organisations play an important part in looking after not only the transition but the veterans themselves, who have given so much during their service life. This is part of our covenant commitment, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and I am grateful that he has mentioned those charities. The veterans board will also help with that. All our commitments to do with the covenant are important, but the Veterans’ Gateway programme will ensure that such small charities get the publicity they deserve.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

The role of all three services of the British armed forces in the liberation of Mosul in Iraq in recent days must be commended. Will the Secretary of State tell me what plans we have for further involvement in Iraq and whether he agrees that the British Army has a crucial role in mentoring and training the Iraqi forces, who are a hugely important ally?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am a Minister in the Ministry of Defence rather than the Secretary of State, but I am glad that my hon. Friend has such confidence in me. I welcome him to his place. It was a pleasure to join him on the 35th anniversary of the Falklands conflict. He is right to ask what should happen next. As we have seen so many times in various conflicts, there has not been that important transition from war-fighting to peacekeeping, but I know that the Secretary of State is involved in this matter.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the UK’s participation in the Common Defence and Security Policy.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)]

While still an EU member, we will maintain our contributions to CSDP missions and operations. The Prime Minister has made it clear that after Brexit we want a deep and special partnership with the European Union that encompasses economic and security co-operation. Europe remains our continent, and we will continue to play our part in its security, through NATO, through our bilateral relationships and through collaboration on defence and research programmes.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Last week, giving evidence in the Lords, Baroness Ashton, Lord Robertson and Lord Hague all expressed concern about the impact of Brexit on our influence in the world. Does the Secretary of State agree with Lord Hague that we should be seeking permanent membership of the EU’s Political and Security Committee to ensure that we can lead a united response on issues such as sanctions on Iran and that we have a united voice on the Falklands?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

After Brexit, we will still have the largest defence budget and the largest navy in Europe. We have a range of assets and capabilities on which other countries in Europe will want to continue to work with us. So far as foreign policy is concerned, we have not yet got to the point in the negotiations of sorting out exactly what the relationship will be, but let me assure the hon. Lady that I expect to continue our co-operation with my fellow Defence Ministers.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be far better for our European friends to focus on their NATO membership and their commitment to defence spending of 2% of their GDP, rather than trying to create some sort of bogus EU defence force?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We all agreed—it was not just Britain—at the time of the Warsaw summit that the European Union and NATO needed to work together to avoid unnecessary duplication. We agreed to co-operate in areas where both could add value but to avoid the need to set up fancy new headquarters and duplicate what was already being done in NATO.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

The European Defence Agency supports the improvement of defence capabilities and provides a forum for European co-operation on research and development. Will the Secretary of State be recommending that we remain a member of the EDA? If not, will he explain what our relationship with it will be, post-Brexit?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

The European Defence Agency is an important forum, but it is not the only forum in which collaboration takes place. Some of that collaboration is outside the treaty, including some of the work that we have done together on Typhoon and on other major equipment projects. Obviously we expect to have some kind of relationship with the European Defence Agency after Brexit, and that will be discussed in the negotiating process that awaits us.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend state that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence alliance. Will he assure me that the pan-European co-operation of defence contractors, such as Thales in my constituency, will continue?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Yes. Several important companies, such as Thales, Leonardo, Airbus and so on, are based both in Europe and in the United Kingdom, and it is important to ensure that their investment and employment here is fully taken into account after Brexit.

[Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he had with contractors on their delivery of service accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

The national housing prime contractor is CarillionAmey and, with support from the MOD, performance levels for service accommodation have been met and sustained. Both organisations meet monthly to review performance, and the Department will penalise poor performance where necessary.

[Fiona Onasanya]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. What estimate has he made of the impact of renegotiating the lease in 2021? Will the costs fall on service families?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for calling me the Secretary of State; I hope that if enough people say that, it will actually—[Interruption.] I should not say that. I will say, however, that the hon. Lady raises the important issue of ensuring that service family accommodation is up to par. That forms part of our armed forces people proposals, which I will be speaking more about in the House. I hope that we will have the opportunity to review the contract in 2021, but I hope the hon. Lady understands that negotiations will take place and that we will we keep the House updated.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there are no plans to eradicate single-living accommodation for service personnel?

[Mr Ellwood]

As far as I understand it, there are no plans to remove single-living accommodation, which forms part of the complex offering of service family accommodation. As we have heard, we need to rationalise the defence estate across the country, and we are returning officers and personnel from the Rhine, which will require building projects, including single-living accommodation.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

As we have heard, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s 46th report found that there was an

“overwhelming view that the maintenance service provided by CarillionAmey was continuing to fall well short of the needs of Service personnel and their families.”

Service families are tired of Government platitudes, so how bad do things have to get before the Government get a grip on the issue?

[Mr Ellwood]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and to the Dispatch Box. He is right to raise that issue. I have just inherited this brief, and there has been concern about standards, in which the Secretary of State has taken a personal interest. We are ensuring that performance levels are up to par, and there will be an opportunity to renegotiate the contract in 2021.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body on levels of pay for the armed forces.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)]

Ministers are in regular contact with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body as part of the annual pay round process. I gave oral evidence to the review body last November prior to its 2017 report, and I expect to meet it again prior to its 2018 report.

[Mike Amesbury]

Given that every Minister, including the Defence Secretary, voted against lifting the pay cap, does that not prove that their praise is more hollow words than good deeds?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We all want to see people in public service, including in the armed forces, properly remunerated for what they do, but any pay settlement must obviously take account of taxpayers’ interests and be fair to our need to get our deficit under control. We are advised by an independent pay review body that, unlike some other pay review bodies, it is specifically required to look at comparability with the civilian sector and to take account of any evidence regarding recruitment and retention.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

At times when general employment levels rise and unemployment levels fall, and with the continued strength of our economy, it gets more and more difficult to recruit and retain armed forces personnel. Will those be key factors in the consideration of this issue?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right. We are competing for the best of every generation against other sectors of the economy, which of course are growing. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body, in recommending a 1% pay rise in its last report, said:

“We believe that…an increase of one per cent in base pay…will broadly maintain pay comparability with the civilian sector.”

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that last question, figures released to me last week by the Secretary of State’s Department in a written answer show that recruitment to our infantry fell by 18% in the last year alone. Does he not accept that not giving a fair pay rise is having a direct impact on recruitment?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

That is not the view of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. As I have just indicated to the House, the pay review body believes that its settlement, recommended last year, does maintain pay comparability with the civilian sector. Some 8,000 people joined the armed forces in the last 12 months, but when the pay review body comes to make its recommendation for next year, it will of course look specifically at the evidence on recruitment and retention—and it does that in a way that some other review bodies are not able to do.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

After losing her majority at the general election, the Prime Minister has now signalled that she is prepared to work across the House with other parties on areas of agreement. In that spirit, I make a constructive offer. The Government have just introduced the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill in the other place. If the Government agree to amend the Bill to include a real-terms pay rise for our armed forces personnel, they can count on Labour’s support, so will they agree to work with us to give our armed forces the pay award they deserve?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We all want to see our armed forces properly remunerated for the service they give us, but it is also incumbent on the hon. Lady to make it very clear how any increase she favours would be properly paid for. That is something she has not done and her party has not done—it certainly did not do it at the last election. The pay review body system is beyond party politics in this House. It is an independent pay review body that looks at comparability with the civilian sector, looks at the issue of retention and recruitment and makes its recommendation, which last year we accepted in full.

[Nia Griffith]

On the contrary, our manifesto was fully funded, and the Government know that. They know how to raise taxes if they need them. The fact is that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is severely constrained by the overall 1% cap on public sector pay that the Government have imposed. If the Government will not legislate for a pay rise, will the Secretary of State at least allow the pay review body to carry out a mid-year review and report on what our armed forces should be receiving if the cap were not in place?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am staggered that the hon. Lady thinks her manifesto was fully costed or, indeed, fully funded. There were billions in that manifesto that were due to be borrowed and paid for by future generations. We have implemented the pay review body’s recommendation in full for this financial year and, for next year, evidence is already being acquired by the pay review body. I will give my evidence to the pay review body later in the year, and we will see what it recommends.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of whether the Royal Navy has sufficient personnel to operate (a) all vessels and (b) the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

The Royal Navy is growing, with 400 more personnel, more ships and new submarines. The Royal Navy remains on track to achieve its manning levels for 2020 and will have sufficient manpower to continue to meet all its operational requirements. That includes ensuring that the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers can always operate safely and effectively.

[Mr Baron]

Given concerns that we are hollowing out our armed forces’ manpower in favour of big-ticket items, what is the Minister, and indeed the Government, doing to ensure that we not only have the manpower to operate those big-ticket items but the ships to protect them when at sea? Global uncertainties abound, and over 90% of our trade is maritime borne.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend highlights the challenges we face in recruiting in our growing economy, and I am pleased that the Navy’s efforts to address shortages of engineers are beginning to show dividends, through the personnel recovery programme. He will also be aware of our investment in offshore patrol vessels, five of which are currently under construction, and in the new Type 26s—we will cut steel later this month.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In March 2017, total Royal Navy numbers were 710 below their liability, and it is reported that currently only six of our service escort platforms are at sea or fully operational. Given that last year we had a net manpower loss of 750, how can we be assured that we have the right retention policies to operate all of our platforms, when they are so desperately needed?

[Mark Lancaster]

The Royal Navy is growing; I am pleased that for the first time in a generation the establishment of the Royal Navy will grow, by 400, as I said. I have mentioned the personnel recovery programme, an excellent programme that has sought to address the shortages of engineers through apprenticeships and through affiliation with university technical colleges. It is a long-term programme, but it is working.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The truth is that the Royal Navy has experienced catastrophic cuts in personnel over the past seven years and now the chickens are coming home to roost; the Navy is even asking 55 to 60-year-olds to rejoin on short-term contracts. Will the Government now recognise the error of their ways and recruit, on good wages, the personnel we need? The Prime Minister has asked for ideas from the Opposition, so will the Minister pass my suggestion on to the Prime Minister?

[Mark Lancaster]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, this seems to be a common theme when we come to the Dispatch Box: he is always terribly negative. I am determined to try to support our serving personnel and, as I have tried to explain, an awful lot of effort is going in at the moment. This really is the year of the Navy, with more than £3 billion invested in the Royal Navy. We are seeing two new carriers; the fourth Astute class was launched recently; and we are seeing the contract launch for three Type 26s. The future is bright for the Royal Navy and I wish he would stop talking it down.

[Mr Speaker]

There is no doubting the comprehensiveness of the replies, but if we could make slightly more timely progress, that would be appreciated by Back Benchers.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to strengthen the armed forces covenant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that service personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged, and that special provision is made for those who have sacrificed the most. We will continue to use the £10 million annual covenant fund to build partnerships that support our military and wider society, including the recently launched veterans gateway, which was mentioned earlier.

[Lucy Allan]

Some councils are much more proactive than others in supporting the armed forces covenant and in marking Armed Forces Day. Telford’s Labour-run council has more work to do in ensuring that warm words on a website translate into action. What does he suggest can be done to encourage increased participation in future?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am really upset to hear that Telford did not join the hundreds of local authorities across the country on 24 June to pay tribute to our armed forces. I was in Plymouth; as we have heard, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) was in Northern Ireland; the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) was in Woolwich; and the Secretary of State was with the Prime Minister in Liverpool. I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition was on that day. We are putting a package of measures together to be given to all hon. Members, so that they can talk to their local authorities and so that next year Telford’s council will join others around the country in paying tribute to our armed forces.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The armed forces covenant is a covenant between those who serve on the frontline and the Government. Those serving on the frontline have over the past six years experienced a real-terms pay cut of about 10%, so does the Minister not agree that that bond of trust is wearing a little thin?

[Mr Ellwood]

The Secretary of State has already answered the question on the pay itself, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she implies: we have to make sure that we look after our service personnel. We put them in danger and in harm’s way, and we must look after them. Armed Forces Day is one opportunity for the nation to show its appreciation.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

The armed forces covenant covers equal access to healthcare. While on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I met many veterans and serving personnel who have issues relating to stigma and mental health. What more is being done about that?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am pleased to be launching the new mental health strategy at the end of the month. We are bringing together the “Five Eyes”—New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom—to share best practice on how best to look after our armed forces when they move, retire and become veterans.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am a proud patron of the veterans charity Forward Assist. Back in March, it was promised just under £200,000 from the tampon tax fund to help its work with female veterans, but the money has yet to materialise. Will the Minister say why there has been a delay and when the money will be released?

[Mr Ellwood]

I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I am not armed with that information, but I would be more than delighted to meet her to discuss the matter. I pay tribute to her for the work she does to support that important charity.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to improve service life satisfaction rates in the Armed Forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

The experience and morale of service personnel are central to defence. Both the Department and the new single services place the management of this as a high priority. As such, we have put in place a large number of programmes, namely the flexible engagement system—a Bill on which will come to the House shortly—the future accommodation model, the new joiners offer and the armed forces family strategy.

[Jenny Chapman]

Currently, forces families are given special assistance by local authorities when they leave the Army. Is the Minister aware that, upon divorce or separation, an Army spouse is instantly no longer classed as part of an Army family and receives no such support? Will he look into this and consider amending the advice given to local authorities?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am certainly happy to look into that, and I am grateful that the hon. Lady has taken the matter up. It is important that we get the package of measures right so that we can support our armed forces personnel and their families as they transition through their career.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

A key part of improving service life satisfaction is ensuring that soldiers can get their children into a good school that understands military life. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Montgomery Infant School and Nursery and Montgomery Junior School, which are celebrating having served the military community in Colchester for 50 years?

[Mr Ellwood]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Those are two schools out of almost 500 around the country that are located near garrisons and that provide support for the children of armed forces personnel. It is important that that continues. The service pupil premium is important for making sure that we look after those pupils, particularly as they end up moving around because of their parents’ careers.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Would service life satisfaction rates be improved by job security? On that basis, will the Minister assure the House that the Army will be no smaller at the end of this Parliament than it is now?

[Mr Ellwood]

That is absolutely the intention. The hon. Gentleman is right to look at the life satisfaction survey, which is one reason behind some of the initiatives that I have mentioned, including the various reviews that are taking place.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

11. What plans the Government have to increase the defence budget in this Parliament.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)]

Our defence budget for 2017-18 is £36 billion, and we are committed to increasing it by at least half a per cent above inflation every year of this Parliament. In addition, we are committed to continuing to meet the NATO guideline to spend at least 2% of our GDP on defence until 2022. Those two commitments will ensure that our armed forces can help to keep Britain safe.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The United Kingdom leads the way, with the biggest defence budget in Europe, but what more can be done to encourage other nations to play their part and increase their spending to protect our collective security?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Since the Wales summit in 2014, defence spending by our allies in Europe has been increasing. Three more countries now meet that 2% target and more than 20 are committed to meeting it by a particular date. We continue to press those allies that have not yet met or planned to meet the target to do so.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will know that his Department recently stated that the trained strength of our armed forces is down below 140,000. If we are to keep people in our armed services satisfied, can we go back to what they were proud of—the tradition of taking in a lot of trainees and being one of the best trainers in the world?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

We are one of the best trainers in the world, and our armed forces training is highly respected the world over. Other countries are constantly telling me that they want more places at Cranwell, Sandhurst and Dartmouth; they also want our armed forces to go out and train, as we are doing in Ukraine and Nigeria; and we have the largest apprenticeship programme in the country.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

12. What progress is being made on implementing the Dreadnought submarine programme.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

16. What progress there has been on the programme to build four Dreadnought submarines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)]

Thanks to the vote a year ago, the Dreadnought programme to replace the four Vanguard-class nuclear-armed submarines is on schedule. Construction on Dreadnought, the first of her class, commenced as planned in October 2016 at the BAE Systems yard in Barrow-in-Furness.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Will the handover from Vanguard to Dreadnought be seamless?

[Harriett Baldwin]

Certainly if I and the 80% of people who took part in the vote a year ago have anything to do with it, it will be. I gently draw the House’s attention to the fact that both the shadow Defence Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition voted in the opposite Lobby on that day.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) would be good enough to circulate to all parliamentary colleagues his textbook on succinct questions from which they would greatly benefit.

[Mrs Latham]

The Dreadnought submarine programme is important to my constituents, many of whom work at the Rolls-Royce Raynesway facility which is building the pressurised water reactors that will go into those submarines. Rolls-Royce has been investing very heavily in the new facility to meet the demands of this programme. When will the Government make a decision?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that companies not just in Barrow-in-Furness but up and down this country are involved in carrying out highly skilled work in this incredibly elaborate programme. I had the pleasure of visiting Raynesway and her nearby constituency and I know how many people in Derby and in Derbyshire depend on that programme. I can assure her that we are making substantial investment in the site.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

We were looking forward to discussing this very issue with the Minister during the general election campaign. I do not know what happened to her; perhaps she can come up to see us next time. Will she put the Government’s full support behind our campaign now to raise education standards in the Furness area where, for generations, school leavers have had below average English and maths results, which is simply not good enough if we are to remain on track for the Dreadnought programme?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind to invite me for another visit to his constituency. I shall look forward to it. He rightly raises the important issue of the skills that we need as a country for these highly skilled and important jobs. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), will be very happy to meet him to discuss what we are doing as we ensure that we put in place that pipeline of skills.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the investment in the Dreadnought-class submarines, which will bring investment to Devonport dockyard in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that we also need to deal with the legacy of current and previous submarines and accelerate the slow pace of the submarine dismantling programme?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is the son of a submariner, on his arrival in this place. It is wonderful to have someone taking such a close interest in the matter. He will be aware that it is the subject of ongoing commercial negotiations. We will keep the House informed.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

13. What estimate he has made of the level of defence spending required over the course of this Parliament.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

18. What estimate he has made of the level of defence spending required over the course of this Parliament.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)]

The Government have committed to meeting the NATO guideline to spend at least 2% of our GDP on defence until the end of this Parliament, and to increase spending by at least half a per cent ahead of inflation every year of this Parliament.

[Paul Scully]

Is it not the case that we only need a growing defence budget if we are committed to leading in NATO, investing in our armed forces and giving them the equipment they need and maintaining our nuclear deterrent? Is it also not the case that this party is the only one that is committed to all three?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is spot on. We are leading by example in NATO. We are the second biggest defence spender in the alliance—one of only six members spending 2%—and we are committed to investing £178 billion in equipment between 2016 and 2026. Our growing defence budget means more ships, more planes, more armoured vehicles and more cutting-edge equipment for our forces.

[Jo Churchill]

Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the Apache helicopter package worth £48 million to secure high-skilled jobs at Wattisham airfield in my constituency, and does he agree that that will help our armed forces to keep us safe, and that it is all due to a growing defence budget?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Yes, I was very pleased to announce this £48 million contract earlier this year, which will support jobs in my hon. Friend’s area and provide world-class Apache training for our personnel. The Apache is a vital part of the British Army’s fighting force and this investment is only possible thanks to a rising defence budget.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The UK was a central part of the European forces in Bosnia, Althea, and in the Mediterranean, Atalanta. Does this mean that the Government will be committing to remain part of such European forces in the future, after we have left the European Union?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

That will become clearer after we leave, but we play an important part in Sophia, Althea and Atalanta not just because of our membership of the European Union but because it is in our national interest to help to deal with migration, to curb piracy off the horn of Africa and to help to stabilise the western Balkans.

[Mr Speaker]

On this question, I call John Howell.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

15. The millions spent on technical innovation on bases around the UK is crucial, particularly on my own base of RAF Benson, where CAE is a big contributor. Does the Secretary of State agree with that and what will he do to continue it?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Yes, I do agree with that. That is why we have set aside a specific innovation fund to encourage more innovation in defence and to get more of our small and medium-sized businesses, of which I know there are a large number in and around my hon. Friend’s constituency, to help us find these cutting-edge solutions.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to encourage innovation by defence suppliers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)]

With an equipment plan worth £178 billion and a rising defence budget, there are great opportunities for innovative suppliers. The £800 million innovation fund will provide the Ministry of Defence with the freedom to pursue innovative solutions in an open, competitive process.

[Nigel Mills]

Will the Minister ensure that there is greater risk appetite in which projects are selected for funding to ensure that our armed forces have the best technology available to them?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. It is one of the things that we weight when we consider awards through the innovation fund to ensure that the projects with the highest risks but the biggest potential pay-off are the ones that are invested in.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)]

It is an honour to be reappointed as Defence Secretary. Our party has a proud record of supporting our armed forces and providing the budget to ensure that they have the capabilities they need. Since the election, our new carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, has sailed, Daesh has been defeated in Mosul with further RAF strikes in Syria and Iraq, and we have signed up Sweden and Finland to join our joint expeditionary force, demonstrating that Britain continues to step up in the world.

[Derek Thomas]

On that note, as the MP with RNAS Culdrose in my constituency, may I ask the Secretary of State for an update on airpower capability and training for the new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

The Queen Elizabeth is designed to operate the F-35B Lightning II aircraft. One hundred and twenty British pilots and aircrew are training on the first 10 of these aircraft in the United States ahead of their arrival in the UK next year. The carrier will also operate Royal Navy Merlin helicopters, specifically those based in my hon. Friend’s constituency at Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We welcome the fact that Iraqi forces, backed by the coalition air strikes, have managed to retake Mosul, with only a small section of the city still under Daesh control. This has been a challenging and complex operation, and we pay tribute to the personnel who have played a part in it, including our forces working on Operation Shader. We know that the battle against Daesh and its evil ideology is far from over, so will the Secretary of State update the House on what further support our armed forces will be providing as Iraq’s ground troops advance westwards towards Tal Afar?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

It is good to be able to agree with the hon. Lady about something today, and I join her in paying tribute to our services—the RAF, which has carried out more than 1,400 strikes in just under three years; the Army, which has helped to train more than 50,000 Iraqi and peshmerga troops;, and the Royal Navy, which has helped to guard the American and French carriers when they have been striking from the Gulf. The military campaign is not over with the fall of Mosul. There remain other towns—Tal Afar, Hawija, in Nineveh province—and there are remnants of Daesh coalescing around the Middle Euphrates river valley, so there is still more work to be done, but there are 4 million fewer people living under Daesh rule since this House gave us permission to engage in this campaign.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

T2. Further to the Secretary of State’s update on progress against Daesh, I know that he will be as concerned as I am that as we defeat Daesh militarily on the ground, its threat seems to be changing as it attacks in other ways in other places. Will he update the House on what his Department is doing to counter those emerging new threats?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is right that the military campaign up the Tigris and along the Euphrates is just part of the strategy. We need to continue disrupting Daesh’s online propaganda. We need to target its senior leadership and undermine its finances. The military campaign has to be combined, and seen as part of a broader coalition campaign to undermine this evil organisation and make sure that it never comes back.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Both the Defence and Foreign Secretaries seem to have suggested that UK forces may target others in Syria beyond the mandate that was given in this House in December 2015—namely, the Assad regime. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if he is to deviate from that mandate, it will only happen after a full debate and vote in this House?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I can confirm that our target in Syria is Daesh. Our strikes are in and around Raqqa and other Daesh areas, including Deir ez-Zor, that Daesh continues to hold. It is not our aim to collaborate with either the regime or indeed its principal sponsor, Russia.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

T7. The Royal Navy has rescued hundreds of migrants in the Mediterranean and taken them to Italy, but has the time now come to consider taking them to North Africa in order to remove the incentive for people to risk their lives and to prevent money being made by people traffickers?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

As part of Operation Sophia, the Royal Navy and UK assets have saved more than 12,500 lives, destroyed more than 170 smuggling boats and apprehended 23 suspected smugglers. We are the only country in Europe that has provided at least one ship at all times. It is UK Government policy to tackle migration at its source, and we are pursuing a comprehensive response including training coastguards, providing sustainable alternatives to unmanaged migration and disrupting criminal gangs.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

T3. Given the delays in procuring the full order for Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, and given that HMS Ocean is to be paid off because of acute staffing shortages, just how does the Minister envisage that the Royal Navy will be capable of discharging its duties of protecting the UK at home and abroad?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)]

I would have hoped for a few more words of welcome for the announcement of the Type 26 frigates, which will be ready for the out-of-service dates and replacement dates of the existing Type 23s. As the hon. Lady knows, HMS Ocean was always due to come out of service next year, and other amphibious capability will obviously be available.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I know from my constituency casework that access to appropriate housing is often a big challenge for those leaving the armed forces. What steps are being taken to ensure that armed forces veterans are prioritised on waiting lists, and that the appropriate help and support is properly being provided?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

We have touched on the importance of the veterans gateway programme, which we hope will provide a connection between the charities and those seeking that help. I also reiterate the importance of local authorities, and encourage all hon. Members to ask their local authorities what more they can do to provide the support our veterans need.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T4. I declare an interest as a former serviceman who served in Afghanistan.The Secretary of State will have seen the recent coverage in The Sunday Times relating to alleged incidents that took place in Afghanistan and the subsequent Royal Military Police inquiry. Will he tell the House who took the decision to shut down Operation Northmoor? Why was that decision taken, when was it taken and was the Prime Minister kept informed?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it will have to be a brief answer or it may need to be in writing. There are a lot of other questions to cover.

[Mark Lancaster]

In answering, I have to declare the same interest, having served in Afghanistan.

Our armed forces are rightly held to the highest standards, and credible, serious allegations of criminal behaviour must be investigated. Op Northmoor has discontinued more than 90% of the 675 allegations received because there was no evidence of criminal or disciplinary offence. To date, no case has been referred to the Service Prosecuting Authority, but investigations continue.

[Mr Speaker]

Single sentence questions are really what is required.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Earlier, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to evidence that Lord Hague gave to the House of Lords EU External Affairs Sub-Committee about the European defence arrangements after Brexit. He said that the best proposal was a paper written by the former Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Has my right hon. Friend seen that paper or would he like to?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I have not actually seen that paper yet, but I am very happy to procure a copy and read it. I made the position clear about common foreign and defence policy. We participate in those missions and operations at the moment, and we continue to press for a partnership with the European Union that encompasses economic and security co-operation.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

T5. Recently, I attended the Grimsby veterans breakfast, and I was told about the problems that former servicemen and women have in accessing local mental health services. What representations did the Defence Secretary make to the Health Secretary regarding the dropping of the promised new mental health Bill from the Queen’s Speech?

[Mr Ellwood]

This goes into the new strategy that is being launched in a couple of weeks’ time, and I would be delighted to learn more about what the hon. Lady learned at her meetings, but I can say that regular meetings take place between the Secretary of State and the Health Secretary.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

One of the major concerns of servicemen in Carterton, which surrounds Brize Norton in my constituency, is the quality of service housing. What steps is the Minister taking to provide high-quality housing for our service personnel?

[Mr Ellwood]

This relates to one of the key initiatives we are putting forward—the future accommodation model—and I would be delighted to write to my hon. Friend with more details.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

T6. At least 603 civilians have been killed by coalition air strikes in Iraq and Syria since the beginning of Operation Inherent Resolve, according to the coalition itself, but the UK has claimed responsibility for none of these incidents. Will the Secretary of State commit to greater scrutiny and transparency for civilian casualties caused by UK airstrikes in Iraq and Syria?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Let me emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that we carry out an assessment after each of the RAF strikes. We investigate any allegation that civilians may have been caught up in these strikes. So far, we have not seen any evidence that civilians have been killed by an RAF strike, but, obviously, every single allegation is carefully investigated.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the point about a sentence has been captured by colleagues—preferably a short one without all sorts of subordinate clauses.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Will the Defence Secretary join me in welcoming the new Combined Cadet Force at the Newark Academy and the Magnus school in Newark, and agree to continue the roll-out of cadet forces in this Parliament, particularly in schools that have suffered from poor educational performance in the past?

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes and yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

T8. Given that the Royal British Legion set out in the armed forces covenant annual report of last year its concerns about the mental health needs of veterans not being met as they should be, does the Secretary of State agree that we need a comprehensive approach to veterans’ mental health, not just in the weeks after they leave the service but throughout their lives?

[Mr Ellwood]

We are providing a comprehensive approach. There is work that takes place, first, with those who are serving, to provide that umbrella of support, and then as they make their transition and, indeed, become veterans. We will be launching the new strategy in two weeks, and I look forward to making announcements to the House.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the RAF will retain its existing surveillance capability—Sentinel—which proved so effective in Mali, and that the existing fleet will be maintained and continued?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I can confirm that. I had the pleasure of going to north Wales recently to extend the Sentinel contract to 2021.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T9. Will the Minister reverse the decision to shut down Operation Northmoor, given the recent report in The Sunday Times on possible criminal behaviour by an SAS unit in Afghanistan?

[Mark Lancaster]

It would be absolutely wrong for there to be ministerial interference in that operation. I am quite confident that Op Northmoor is appropriately resourced, both through personnel and finances, and I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Government consider reinstating ring-fenced funding for the BBC Monitoring Service, given that its absence is leading to the closure of Caversham Park and a considerable reduction in the service’s defensive potential?

[Mark Lancaster]

I am more than happy to look at the matter for my right hon. Friend.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

T10. Given that the UK claims to support multilateral nuclear disarmament, will the Secretary of State tell the House why the UK boycotted the UN’s nuclear ban treaty negotiations and how the UK Government will respond to the nuclear ban treaty? Can he understand the disappointment of so many of my constituents at the UK’s boycott of these negotiations?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Lady is in pursuit of an essay, but, sadly, time allows only for a short answer.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Let me be very clear: we do not support this treaty. We do not think it should apply to the United Kingdom, and if it is voted on we will not accept it.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

What conversations has the Minister had with British steel producers to maximise the use of British steel in the new Type 26 frigates, and what percentage of the steel that will be used to build those frigates will be British steel?

[Harriett Baldwin]

Again, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the news on the Type 26 frigates. He will be aware that we publish on gov.uk the full pipeline in terms of our steel requirements. We do encourage our prime contractors to see where they can use British steel, and I am sure that in due course he will be pleased to see progress.

G20

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

15:35

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G20 in Hamburg.

At this summit we showed how a global Britain can play a key role in shaping international responses to some of the biggest challenges of our time. On terrorism, trade, climate change, international development, migration, modern slavery and women’s economic empowerment, we made leading contributions on issues that critically affect our national interest but which can be addressed only by working together with our international partners.

First, on terrorism, as we have seen with the horrific attacks in Manchester and London, the nature of the threat we face is evolving, and our response must evolve to meet it. The UK is leading the way. At the G7, and subsequently through a detailed action plan with President Macron, I called for industry to take responsibility more to rapidly detect and report extremist content online—and industry has now announced the launch of a global forum to do just that. At this summit we set the agenda again, calling on our G20 partners to squeeze the lifeblood out of terrorist networks by making the global financial system an entirely hostile environment for terrorists—and we secured agreements on all our proposals.

We agreed to work together to ensure there are no safe spaces for terrorist financing by increasing capacity-building and raising standards worldwide, especially in terrorist finance hotspots. We agreed to bring industry and law enforcement together to develop new tools and technologies better to identify suspicious small flows of money being used to support low cost terrorist attacks, such as those we have seen in the UK. Just as Interior Ministers are following up on the online agenda we set at the G7, so Finance Ministers will follow through on these G20 commitments to cut off the funding that fuels the terrorist threat we face.

I also called for the G20 to come together better to manage the risk posed by foreign fighters as they disperse from the battlefield in Syria and Iraq, and we agreed we would work to improve international information-sharing on the movement of individuals known to have travelled to and from Daesh territory. By working together in these ways we can defeat this terrorist threat and ensure that our way of life will always prevail.

Turning to the global economy, we are seeing encouraging signs of recovery with the IMF forecasting that global GDP will rise by 3.5%. But many, both here in the UK and across the G20, are simply not sharing in the benefits of that growth. So we need to build a global economy that works for everyone by ensuring that trade is not just free but, crucially, fair for all. That means fair for all people here in the UK, which is why we are forging a modern industrial strategy that will help to bring the benefits of trade to every part of our country. It means fair terms of trade for the poorest countries, which is why we will protect their trade preferences as we leave the EU, and in time explore options to improve their trade access; and it means strengthening the international rules that make trade fair between countries. So at this summit I argued that we must reform the international trading system, especially the World Trade Organisation given its central role, so that it keeps pace with developments in key sectors like digital and services, and so it is better able to resolve disputes.

Some countries are not playing by the rules. They are not behaving responsibly and are creating risks to the global trading system. Nowhere is this clearer than in relation to the dumping of steel on global markets. The urgent need to act to remove excess capacity was recognised last year at the G20, but not enough has been done since. If we are to avoid unilateral action by nations seeking to protect themselves from unfairly priced steel, we need immediate collective action, so we agreed that the global forum established last year needs to be more effective and the pace of its work must quicken. In order to ensure its work gets the necessary attention and there is senior accountability, I have pressed for relevant Ministers from around the world to meet in this forum. The UK will play a leading role in championing all those reforms so that all citizens can share in the benefits of global growth.

As we leave the European Union, we will negotiate a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU, but we will also seize the exciting opportunities to strike deals with old friends and new partners. At this summit, I held a number of meetings with other world leaders, all of whom made clear their strong desire to forge ambitious new bilateral trading relationships with the UK after Brexit. This included America, Japan, China and India. This morning, I welcomed Australian Prime Minister Turnbull to Downing Street, where he also reiterated his desire for a bold new trading relationship. All those discussions are a clear and powerful vote of confidence in British goods, British services, the British economy and the British people, and I look forward to building on them in the months ahead.

On climate change, the UK reaffirmed our commitment to the Paris agreement, which is vital if we are to take responsibility for the world we pass on to our children and grandchildren. There is not a choice between decarbonisation and economic growth, as the UK’s own experience shows. We have reduced our emissions by around 40% over the last 16 years but grown our GDP by almost two thirds. So I, and my counterparts at the G20, are dismayed at America’s withdrawal from this agreement. I spoke personally to President Trump to encourage him to rejoin the Paris agreement, and I continue to hope that that is exactly what he will do.

On international development, we reaffirmed our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance, and we set out plans for a new long-term approach to reduce Africa’s reliance on aid. That includes focusing on supporting African aspirations for trade and growth, creating millions of new jobs and harnessing the power of capital markets to generate trillions of new investment. We welcomed Germany’s new compact with Africa, which reflects those principles.

On migration, I expressed the UK’s continued support for the scale of the challenge facing Italy, and agreed with Prime Minister Gentiloni that a UK expert delegation from the Home Office and the Department for International Development will travel out to Italy to see how we can help further. That is yet further evidence that, while we are leaving the European Union, as a global Britain we will continue to work closely with all our European partners.

The G20 also agreed to use the upcoming negotiations on the UN global compacts to seek the comprehensive approach that the UK has been arguing for. That includes ensuring that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach; improving the way we distinguish between refugees and economic migrants; and developing a better overall approach to managing economic migration. It also includes providing humanitarian and development assistance to refugees in their home region. At this summit, the UK committed £55 million to support the Government of Tanzania in managing their refugee and migrant populations and to support the further integration of new naturalised Burundian refugees.

Turning to modern slavery, it is hard to comprehend that in today’s world innocent and vulnerable men, women and children are being enslaved, forced into hard labour, raped, beaten and passed from abuser to abuser for profit. We cannot and will not ignore this dark and barbaric trade in human beings that is simply horrifying in its inhumanity. That is why I put this issue on the G20 agenda at my first summit a year ago, and at this summit I pushed for a global and co-ordinated approach to the complex business supply chains that can feed the demand for forced labour and child labour.

Our ground-breaking UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to examine all aspects of their businesses, including their supply chains, and to publish their results. I called on my G20 partners to follow Britain’s lead. I welcomed Germany’s proposed vision zero fund, to which the UK is contributing, as an important part of helping to ensure the health and safety of workers in these global supply chains.

Finally, we agreed to create better job opportunities for women, to remove the legal barriers and end the discrimination and gender-based violence that restrict opportunities both at home and abroad. As part of this, the UK is contributing to the women entrepreneurs finance initiative, launched by the World Bank, which will provide more than $1 billion to support women in developing countries to start and grow businesses. This is not just morally right; it is economically essential. The UK will continue to play a leading role in driving forward women’s economic empowerment across the world.

Of course, we did not agree on everything at the summit, in particular on climate change. But when we have such disagreements, it is all the more important that we come together in forums such as the G20 to try to resolve them. As a global Britain, we will continue to work at bridging differences between nations and forging global responses to issues that are fundamental to our prosperity and security, and to that of our allies around the world. That is what we did at the summit, and that is what the Government will continue to do. I commend this statement to the House.

15:45

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of this statement. I am really surprised that she had much to contribute at the G20, given that there was barely a mention of international policy in her party’s election manifesto—or, indeed, of any policy, so much so that the Government are apparently now asking other parties for their policy ideas. If the Prime Minister would like it, I am very happy to furnish her with a copy of our election manifesto, or better still an early election in order that the people of this country can decide.

Let us face it: the Government have run out of steam, at a pivotal moment for our country and the world. Amid the uncertainty of Brexit, conflict in the Gulf states, nuclear sabre-rattling over North Korea, refugees continuing to flee war and destruction, ongoing pandemics and cross-border terrorism, poverty, inequality and the impact of climate change are the core global challenges of our time. Just when we need strong government, we have weakness from this Government.

The US President attempts to pull the plug on the Paris climate change deal, and that gets only a belated informal mention in a brief meeting with him; there was no opportunity to sign a joint letter from European leaders at the time he made the announcement. The UK’s trade deficit is growing, at a time when we are negotiating our exit from the European Union. The UK-backed Saudi war in Yemen continues to kill, displace and injure thousands, and there have been 300,000 cases of cholera—this is a man-made catastrophe. Worse, the Government continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive and brutal regimes, which finances terrorism and is breaching humanitarian law. The Court may have ruled that the Government acted legally, but they are certainly not acting ethically.

We welcome the ceasefire agreed between the US and Russia in south-west Syria. It is good news. Did the Prime Minister play any role in those negotiations? Will she commit to working with them to expand the ceasefire to the rest of that poor, benighted country?

The US President’s attempt to pull out of the Paris climate change deal is both reckless and very dangerous. The commitments made in Paris are a vital move to stop the world reaching the point of no return on climate change. Other G20 leaders have been unequivocal with the US President, but not our Prime Minister; apparently, she did not raise the issue in her bilateral meeting but later raised it informally. I do not quite know what that means, but perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us exactly what the nature of that meeting was. What a complete neglect of her duty both to our people and—equally importantly—to our planet.

We need a leader who is prepared to speak out and talk up values of international co-operation, human rights, social justice and respect for international law. The Prime Minister now needs to listen. Will she condemn attempts to undermine global co-operation on climate change? Will she take meaningful action against our country’s role in global tax avoidance, which starves many developing countries of funding for sustainable growth and which is sucking investment out of our public services?

Will the Prime Minister offer European Union nationals in Britain the same rights as they have now? What proposals does she have, and what discussions has she had, on Britain’s membership of Euratom? Will she halt the immoral arms sales to Saudi Arabia, as Germany has done, and back Germany’s call to end the bombing in Yemen?

We have heard the Prime Minister talk about “safe spaces” for terrorist finance, so why have her Government sat on the report on foreign funding of extremism and radicalisation in the UK? When will that report be released? What new regulations is the UK bringing forward for UK companies and banks as part of her new global accord on terrorist financing?

Keeping Britain global is one of our country’s most urgent tasks, but the truth is this country needs a new approach to foreign policy and global co-operation. The Conservative Government, in hock to vested interests, simply cannot deliver. Responding to the grotesque levels of inequality within countries and between them is important to the security and sustainability of our world. In a joint report published in April, the World Bank, the IMF and the World Trade Organisation recognised what they referred to as the

“long-lasting displacements as well as large earnings losses”

of workers, and that the negative experience of globalisation has informed the public’s rejection of the established political order. The Prime Minister talks of the dumping of steel on global markets, but why did her Government fail to take the action that other European nations took at the most acute time when our steel industry was suffering?

This Government are the architect of failed austerity policies, and now threaten to use Brexit to turn Britain into a low wage, deregulated tax haven on the shores of Europe—a narrow and hopeless vision of the potential of this country that would serve only an elite few, and one that would ruin industry, destroy innovation and hit people’s living standards.

Finally, the US President said a US-UK trade deal will happen quickly. Can the Prime Minister give any detail or timetable or any of the terms of this agreement—on environmental protections, workers’ rights, consumer rights, product safety or any of the issues that so concern so many people? The Prime Minister has lost her mandate at home, and now she is losing Britain her influence abroad.

[The Prime Minister]

On the issue of terrorist financing, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is in fact the United Kingdom that has not only been developing approaches within the UK, working with our financial sector, but is taking this internationally and, as I have said, has raised this at the G20 and has agreement from countries sitting around the G20 table that we are going to take this forward together. I think what was important was that we had a separate communiqué on counter-terrorism, which specifically identifies issues such as working with the financial sector to identify suspicious small flows of funding. This is what the UK has led on, it was the UK’s proposal and it was in the communiqué of the G20.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about global tax avoidance. It is the UK that has led on the issues of global tax avoidance. Global tax avoidance is on the agenda of these international meetings only because my predecessor, the right hon. David Cameron, put it there. It is the UK that has been leading on that.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about trade deals. I am very happy to tell him that we are already working with the Americans on what a trade deal might look like. We already have a working group with the Australians, and we have a working group with India as well. We are out there. He says that what Britain needs is somebody actually standing up and speaking about these things; what we need is somebody doing these things, and that is exactly what we are doing.

On the issue of climate change, this country has a proud record on climate change. We secured the first truly global, legally binding agreement on climate change in the Paris agreement. We are the third best country in the world for tackling climate change. We were at the leading edge in putting through our own legislation in relation to emissions, and this country will continue to lead on this issue.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the question of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. I welcome the High Court judgment today—my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will make a statement on this later this afternoon—but I think it shows that we in this country do indeed operate one of the most robust export control regimes in the world.

The right hon. Gentleman started off by talking about the issue of the Government’s agenda. This Government have an ambitious agenda to change this country. There are many issues—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Ashworth, you are a cheeky and rather over-excitable whippersnapper. Calm yourself and, as I say, take some sort of soothing medicament. That is a repeated refrain of mine, but with good reason.

[The Prime Minister]

There are many issues on which, I would hope, we will be able to achieve consensus across this House: issues such as ensuring that our police and security agencies have the powers they need to deal with the terrorist threat we face; issues such as responding to the Matthew Taylor report, which I commissioned to ensure that, in the new gig economy, as we see the world of work changing, workers have their rights protected.

We talked about women’s empowerment at the G20 summit. One issue that I have been concerned about recently is the fact that many female candidates during the general election found themselves in receipt of bullying and harassment. I would have hoped that, as has been said by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), every leader of a political party in this House would stand up and condemn such action. It is time that the Leader of the Opposition did so.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her many successes at a productive summit, particularly on the trade front. Will she confirm that Ministers are working not just on trade deals with those countries we do not have one with at the moment but will have when we are outside the EU, but on making sure that we transfer the EU ones to the UK on exit?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give that confirmation to my right hon. Friend. We are working on trade in three areas. Obviously, one area is looking ahead to the trade agreements we can have with those countries we do not currently have them with as a member of the European Union. The second is ensuring that, where there are trade agreements with the EU, we are able to roll those forward as we leave the EU. The third area is working with countries such as India and Australia to discuss what changes we can make now, before we leave the European Union, to improve our trade relationship.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The G20 summit was an eye-opening event: the UK is now floundering around on the global stage, desperately trying to win friends. A disastrous and unpredictable alliance was formed with the American President on trade. Goodness knows what a trade deal with America now would mean for our public services, for food quality and for workers’ rights. Indeed, talk about a UK-US trade deal was dealt a blow by the Prime Minister’s own Justice Secretary, who just hours after the summit said:

“It wouldn’t be enough on its own”.

The Prime Minister must come to her senses. A United Kingdom outside the single market would be ruinous. Our EU friends and partners are moving on without us, this year alone finalising trade deals with Japan and Canada, while the UK readily turns in on itself. Today’s Scottish Chambers of Commerce survey shows that 61% of Scottish businesses feel that the UK should remain in both the single market and the customs union. It is quite scandalous that the Prime Minister turns a blind eye to the economy in favour of her Eurosceptic colleagues’ reckless rhetoric.

I welcome the progress made at the G20 summit. I especially pay tribute to the work of the German Chancellor, who hosted and delivered a challenging agenda on global issues. The communiqué is clear that we must redouble our efforts in delivering the Paris agreement, calling it “irreversible”. I ask the Prime Minister to set out the next steps in delivering the Paris agreement outcomes in the UK.

The communiqué also delivers the G20 Africa Partnership to boost growth and jobs across Africa, including an initiative on rural employment that will create 1.1 million new jobs by 2022. Will the Prime Minister explain the UK’s role in delivering the initiative and confirm whether that role will continue after the UK exits the EU?

The agreement to take further action to achieve gender equality is undoubtedly universally welcomed in this House. The conclusions also push the G20 to

“take immediate and effective measures to eliminate child labour by 2025, forced labour, human trafficking and all forms of modern slavery.”

That is a promising step indeed.

However, the Prime Minister went to Hamburg with an opening core message: she wanted the G20 to tackle terrorism. In particular, she wanted the G20 to tackle terrorist financing—what staggering hypocrisy! The Prime Minister who is sitting on a report commissioned by her predecessor, denying us all the truth about terrorist financing in the UK, had the brass neck to call on the G20 to do more. What an absolute outrage. Will she publish the Home Office extremism analysis report on terror funding in the UK and will she set up a public inquiry into questions around the funding of extremism?

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was not making a personal accusation against the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. I know what I am doing in these matters.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not making a personal accusation of hypocrisy against the Prime Minister. I cannot believe that he would knowingly do so, because it is palpably disorderly, and he ought to be aware of that. If he is not aware of that, it is time that he was, but I think he ought to spring to his feet and clarify the position.

[Ian Blackford]

Indeed, I am happy to clarify. It is the hypocrisy—

[Mr Speaker]

On a point of explanation: my sense was that there was an element of an accusation. Withdraw.

[Ian Blackford]

I will withdraw the allegation against the Prime Minister. It is against the—

[Mr Speaker]

No. I do not want to hear anything further. The Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. He asked about trade deals. As I said in my statement, we have indeed started discussions with a number of countries—yes, the United States, but also Japan, China and India—and I was able to speak to representatives of a number of other countries at the G20 about the possibility of future trade deals.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the compact with Africa. That is not a European Union initiative. It has been led by Chancellor Merkel under the G20, and, indeed, the United Kingdom is playing its role. The principles that underpin the compact are principles that we have been using in the assistance that we have already been giving in development aid to a variety of countries in Africa. We already have a compact with Ethiopia, which the United Kingdom has put forward and which will create 100,000 jobs, including jobs for refugees living in Ethiopia. So we have already shown a commitment to these issues by what we are actually out doing.

The hon. Gentleman talked about terrorist financing. Of course we discussed ensuring that we look across the board at all aspects of the issue, which means that, as we look at the changing nature of terrorism, we look not just at large-scale financing but at the small sums that are harder to trace—harder to identify—but that could underpin attacks that take place. The communiqué clearly put a focus on that new initiative.

It is important to eradicate modern slavery, which the hon. Gentleman also talked about. That was in the G20 agenda because I put it there, because modern slavery is an issue that this Government take very seriously. We introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the first piece of legislation of its kind in the world, and we are working with others to ensure that we eradicate modern slavery.

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that his portrayal of the UK’s position at the G20 was simply wrong, but then, he was not there and I was.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If I am to accommodate the extensive interest of colleagues in this matter, there will be an imperative for great brevity—to be, I hope, spectacularly exemplified now by Anna Soubry.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker, but I did not actually have a question. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.] Order. I did not imagine it in my sleep. The right hon. Lady was standing. If she ceased to do so, I was not conscious of the fact; but she has leapt to her feet with alacrity, and the House is in a state of eager anticipation and bated breath.

[Anna Soubry]

I always take the opportunity to say something. [Laughter.]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could help us with the Modern Slavery Act. As she rightly said, we have led the world with that legislation, and many of us are hugely proud of the work that she did when she was Home Secretary. Is she finding that, throughout the world, there is now a desire for other countries to follow where she and this country have led?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very pleased to be able to say to my right hon. Friend that that is indeed the case. We are seeing a much greater awareness of the issue throughout the world, and a much greater willingness on the part of Governments to look at it. Governments are looking at the human trafficking aspect across borders, but as we know here in the UK, it is also important to look at what happens in-country—what happens to the citizens of one’s own country—and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am certain that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will be as brief as his surname.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The G20 discussed energy security. The Prime Minister will no doubt be aware of growing anxiety on both sides of the House about her proposal to withdraw the UK from the Euratom treaty, despite concern about the implications for the movement of scientists, nuclear materials and life-saving radiotherapies. Can she explain what the UK nuclear industry will gain from such a policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his chairing of the Select Committee that membership of Euratom is inextricably linked with membership of the European Union. As was signalled in the Queen’s Speech with reference to a future Bill on this issue, we want to ensure that we can maintain those relationships—that co-operation with Euratom which enables the exchange of scientists and material. Countries throughout the world that are not members of the EU have that relationship with Euratom, but we need to put that Bill in place, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s support for it.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that free trade will be one of the great Brexit dividends, and that it will provide cheaper food, clothing and footwear, to the greatest benefit of the poorest in our society?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is free trade that enables us to grow economies, increase prosperity and provide jobs, and there will be benefits from the trade agreements that we want to negotiate throughout the world. But we also need as a country to defend the concept of free trade because, sadly, it is under too much attack from protectionists around the world.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

When journalists and activists such as Anna Politkovskaya and Natalia Estemirova have been murdered in Putin’s Russia, does the Prime Minister share my anger at the chilling sight of Presidents Trump and Putin joking about the inconvenience of a free press, and will she commit to raising the importance of the independence of the media to both leaders when she next meets them?

[The Prime Minister]

We defend a free press. We think a free press is an essential underpinning of our democracy here, and we want to defend a free press around the world. I can assure the hon. Lady that we do regularly raise this issue with the Russian President and at all levels in Russian authorities.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the extraordinary work she has done on the issue of human trafficking and slavery, and commend her for raising that matter at the G20. However, with the world on the move, there are, unfortunately, opportunities for more, rather than less, of that. What can we do between the G20s to ensure that other countries take the issue as seriously as the UK does? We have set the bar on this and we need to raise others to it.

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely right, and we are taking action across a number of areas. As I said, the specific area we focused on at the G20 was the business supply chains, but one of the key ways of ensuring we can act against human trafficking and modern slavery is through the co-operation of the law enforcement agencies in the UK with others around the world. That is exactly what we are encouraging and what is happening—and, I am pleased to say, with some success.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

A year ago, the then Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), told the House that the Government supported a multilateral deal on public country-by-country reporting. He said that

“if we have not made progress by this time next year on reaching a multilateral agreement, we will need to look carefully at the issue once again.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2016; Vol. 612, c. 160.]

A year on, may I ask the Prime Minister to confirm what progress has been made, and what discussions she has had with G20 members to ensure that we can tackle corporate tax avoidance through open, public country-by-country reporting?

[The Prime Minister]

We regularly raise that issue, and we are disappointed at the lack of progress on it. We will continue to press on it, but of course if we are going to get that multilateral agreement, others have to agree to the concept as well. We will continue to press on the issue, however. It is on the agenda because the UK has been putting it there, and we will continue to do so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On the new love-fest with Members on the Opposition Benches, given the record of the Leader of the Opposition on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, does the Prime Minister possess a very long spoon?

[The Prime Minister]

I can say to my right hon. Friend that as Home Secretary I welcomed the co-operation which I had from the Labour Benches—not from the right hon. Gentleman who is currently Leader of the Opposition, but from others on his Benches, who have seen the need to ensure that our agencies have appropriate powers to deal with the terrorist threat that we face—and I look forward to Labour MPs, and indeed others on the Opposition Benches in this House, supporting those counter-terrorism measures when we bring them forward.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The G20 communiqué includes important references to investment in global education, including the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait. The UK has a proud record of leading on global health. Will the Prime Minister join Argentina during its forthcoming G20 presidency to ensure that investment in global education is given the priority it deserves?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed, this is not just about looking ahead to the agenda for the next G20 meeting. It is also about what the United Kingdom has been doing practically, through our international development budget. For example, a significant number of girls, in particular, around the world are now being educated as a result of our input. We think that the global education agenda is very important.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister said in her statement, we are leaving the European Union but we are not leaving Europe. May I welcome her announcement that we will continue to work with our European friends and allies to develop a better overall approach to managing economic migration?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, this is an issue that the UK has been leading on, and other countries are increasingly recognising the importance of what we have been saying about differentiating between refugees and economic migrants. We will continue to work on this not just in the G20 but in the United Nations work that started last year and will be progressing towards the end of this year on the compact for migration and refugees across the world.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

We know that US intelligence services leaked sensitive UK intelligence in the hours following the attack on the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. This weekend, according to a tweet from President Trump, he and President Putin were discussing forming

“an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking…will be guarded and safe”.

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that UK intelligence assets on cyber-warfare will not be compromised, or shared in any way as long as there is a risk of this sort of bizarre and dangerous alliance with the Russians?

[The Prime Minister]

We take the issue of intelligence sharing very seriously. It is important that we are able to share intelligence with our allies in the United States and with other allies around the world, but what matters is that we are able to do that on the basis of confidence that that intelligence will be treated appropriately. I can assure the hon. Lady that we take the whole issue of cyber-security extremely seriously. That is why we have set up the new National Cyber Security Centre. We recognise and understand the threat that Russia poses in that area.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

We heard positive words from the President of the United States at the G20 summit—and more this morning from the Prime Minister of Australia—on the opportunities for rapid and comprehensive trade deals between their countries and the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that new trade deals with old friends and new, which will be realisable only outside the customs union, will add to the prosperity of a new, global Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been very clear that we want to undertake, sign up to and activate new trade deals with old friends and new allies alike. That, of course, means not being part of the customs union, which would prevent us from doing so. It is important that we are able to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU and trade agreements around the rest of the world.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I press the Prime Minister on the issue of migration and displacement, which affects 65 million people worldwide? She will know that, since 1 January, 82,800 people have risked their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean, and that 2,000 have died. The G20 leaders run 84% of the economy of the world. Apart from the £55 million that is going to Tanzania, what other resources are being given to deal with this catastrophic problem?

[The Prime Minister]

The resources being given to this issue are significant and varied. From the United Kingdom’s point of view, we have been doing work through our development aid budget, particularly in a number of countries in Africa. I referred earlier to the compact that we have with Ethiopia, which is providing jobs in that country for refugees and others. We see it as important to ensure that there are economic opportunities in the countries of origin where there is migration, so that people do not feel the need to make that dangerous journey. As I announced at the last EU Council meeting, we are giving extra funding—I think £75 million—to work with Libya and Italy to ensure that there are humane conditions so that people can be returned to countries in Africa. We have also increased the ability of the Libyan coastguard to ensure that it can properly intercept those boats that could pose a risk to people’s lives if they were to try to make it across the Mediterranean. This is multi-faceted, but the United Kingdom is involved in every aspect of it.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition has spent his entire life opposing trade deals with countries such as Mexico and India. The Prime Minister’s success at the G20 meeting means that we can look both east and west when securing trade deals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should recognise and be proud of the global confidence in British services, British goods and the British economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that several leaders—not only those whom I have mentioned, but others as well—have expressed their interest in trade deals with the United Kingdom is a vote of confidence in the British people.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I would be really interested to know when the Prime Minister expects to sign trade deals with Australia and India, how much she expects those deals to be worth, and how much extra immigration she intends to accept as part of those deals.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady may know that there is a limit to what we can put in place while we are still a member of the European Union, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss what a future trade agreement might be or how we can improve trade relations now. We can do just that in certain areas that are not covered by EU competences, and those are the discussions that we are having.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Behind some of the rhetoric coming from the other side of the House, there actually seems to be a consensus that a UK-US free trade deal would be a good and necessary thing when we leave the European Union. Does the Prime Minister welcome, like me, the clear support of the American Administration, as expressed at the G20 meeting? The other important decision makers in this are those in the American Congress. Following her successful visit to Philadelphia with the Republican caucus, will she allow the excellent congressional relations office in our Washington embassy to help Members of Parliament make the case for a trade deal to our congressional colleagues?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the role that Congress will play, and he raises an interesting idea. I did have discussions with members of Congress when I was in Philadelphia, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has also been having discussions with members of Congress recently. We will consider my hon. Friend’s proposal, but he is right that we will be working with Congress and the American Administration on this.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister says that she wants help in building consensus for sensible policies. There are majorities in this House to stay in Euratom and in the European Medicines Agency, so why does she not do that?

[The Prime Minister]

As I referred to in answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), membership of Euratom is inextricably linked with membership of the European Union. As we leave the European Union, we will be leaving Euratom, but we will be looking to put in place a similar relationship with Euratom, just as other countries around the world that are not members of the EU have access to the movement of scientists and materials and to Euratom’s standards. We recognise the importance of this matter, which is why a Bill on this subject was in the Queen’s Speech.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend is now open to ideas from a man who tried to remove her from office, I wonder whether she will be prepared to take an idea from a friend who stood on a platform of keeping her in office and who wants her to stay in office—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should calm himself. I want to hear what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has to say.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

How about this idea: we have warm words about helping Italy on migration, but as long as it is forced to take all the refugees, more and more will obviously come. Will my right hon. Friend work with our allies to try to establish safe havens in Libya, so that people can be returned safely? That is a Conservative idea, not a useless socialist one.

[The Prime Minister]

Not only is the concept of being able to return people to Libya a good one, but it is one that we are already working on. It is one of the issues that we will be discussing with the Italians and others in relation to the extra humanitarian aid that we are making available. We have also offered the Italians support and help with returns to Nigeria, because a significant number of those who reach Italy come from Nigeria, where the United Kingdom is already running arrangements to provide the sort of area in which people are able to stay.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On Syria and the loss of civilian life, specifically as it relates to US operations against Daesh in Raqqa, it appears that the rules of engagement have changed. Has the Prime Minister, or any of her Ministers, raised that with the United States of America?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady may recognise, we have regular discussions with the Americans and others within the coalition about the action that is taking place. I think that the military action to drive Daesh out of Mosul has been very important and that the military action in Raqqa will be important, but of course, as a United Kingdom, we always want to ensure that such actions deal with those they are supposed to deal with—the terrorists—and do not affect civilians.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I add my welcome to the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly in respect of the additional assistance being given to Italy to tackle migration. My right hon. Friend may not be aware that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Greece. As she knows, Greece also has a huge burden to bear with the movement of migrants. Will she agree to consider whether the delegation being sent to Italy might also be sent, in due course, to Greece?

[The Prime Minister]

As it happens, we are mirroring in Italy something that we have already offered to Greece and that has been taken up by Greece. Of course, there is now a different situation in Greece because of the European Union’s deal with Turkey. We have seen a significant reduction in the number of migrants trying to reach Greece, but people who came through those routes are now trying to go through Libya into Italy. We will certainly ensure that we give as much support as we can to Italy in this matter.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

In the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for a bilateral trade agreement with the United States, will she accept American insistence that we dilute food standards and agree to the establishment of investment protection mechanisms that override British courts?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is asking about arrangements in negotiations that have yet to take place. We have started discussions with the Americans, and we will of course be negotiating trade arrangements with them.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

Many developing countries are keen to trade with G20 countries free from punitive tariffs and on a level playing field. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain can be a real leader in free trade and fair trade, once we leave the European Union, by setting our own tariffs on trade and striking our own trade deals?

[The Prime Minister]

This is very important. We will have the ability, once we are outside the European Union, to strike those trade deals with countries around the world. Underpinning my hon. Friend’s question is the need for the United Kingdom to stand up and promote free and fair trade around the world. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), there is a temptation in some areas to move towards protectionism, and I think we should stand against that. We should show very clearly that it is free trade that brings prosperity and jobs, and that it not only helps economies such as ours but helps some of the world’s poorest countries to develop.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Given the special relationship that the Prime Minister enjoys with President Trump, can she explain why she failed to influence him and prevent him from pulling out of the Paris climate agreement? Will she condemn that decision and refrain from rolling out the red carpet for him in the form of a state visit?

[The Prime Minister]

We—the United Kingdom and I—made our view on the Paris agreement very clear to the United States. The United States takes its own decisions, and this was a commitment that President Trump made during his election campaign. I have said to him on more than one occasion that I hope we can encourage the United States to come back into the Paris agreement, which I think is important. We will continue to work to try to get them back in.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Given that the vast majority of Members of Parliament, including the Leader of the Opposition, stood on an election platform explicitly backing Brexit, is it not time that people stopped using these negotiations for either political or even personal advantage and united behind the Prime Minister, allowing her and her Ministers to get on with delivering a deal that works for the whole of Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is very right: 80% of the votes at the general election were for parties that said they wanted to deliver on the Brexit decision taken by the British people in the referendum last year. That is what the Government are going to get on and do, and I hope others across the House will support us in doing it.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said in her statement that, “women and children are being enslaved, forced into hard labour, raped, beaten and passed from abuser to abuser for profit.” Does she agree that that is no more true than when it comes to the depravity of child prostitution in India? Did she raise that issue with Prime Minister Modi?

[The Prime Minister]

I have raised this issue—the question of modern slavery—previously with Prime Minister Modi, as the United Kingdom wants people around the world to address it. We are very clear that we want to see this issue being dealt with. That is one of the reasons why we have put into legislation the requirement for companies here in the UK, which will be manufacturing and will be sourcing products from around the world, to look at their supply chains and report on what they find in them and whether or not modern slavery is taking place within them.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that although we are leaving the European Union, there are still many matters on which we need to co-operate? I am thinking particularly of across the English channel in dealing with the migrant problems, of how we are going to manage international trade, of how we are going to work with Europe to tackle the evil of people trafficking and of co-operation to stop these multinationals from gaming our tax systems across the European continent.

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there is much on which we will continue to want to co-operate with countries within the European Union. Of course, the relationship we have with France and Belgium in particular in relation to our ports and the traffic of people across the channel is very important to us. We have been working increasingly with the French authorities and others, including the Greek authorities, in dealing with this issue of human trafficking and successfully ensuring that criminal gangs involved in it are not just identified, but investigated and prosecuted.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm whether she spoke to President Erdoğan of Turkey at the G20 summit? If so, did she ask him about the reasons why the Cyprus talks in Switzerland broke down again without resolution last week?

[The Prime Minister]

I did speak to President Erdoğan about the Cyprus talks; I also spoke to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who of course had been present at them, about the reason why they broke down. It is a matter of not only great disappointment, but great sadness that they did not come to fruition; they were the closest we have come to finding a solution for the unification of Cyprus. As I say, it is a matter of sadness that that was not able to be achieved. The United Nations worked to achieve it and the United Kingdom played a strong role in trying to achieve it, but sadly it did not happen.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

A quarter of G20 members are also members of the Commonwealth. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s talking about preliminary discussions with Australia and India, but will she also let the House know what discussions have been had with other Commonwealth countries, such as New Zealand?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to let my hon. Friend know that we have indeed also been having discussions with New Zealand. This is an issue I think we can progress with a number of other members of the Commonwealth—not just New Zealand, but Canada.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What concrete steps will the Government take next to get climate change back in the discussion with the US Administration?

[The Prime Minister]

We raise this issue regularly with the US Administration, but, crucially, there was a very clear message from everybody sitting around the table at the G20 to the US Administration about the importance we all placed on the climate change agreement—on the Paris agreement—and on the US being a member of it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Kettering is located at the economic beating heart of the nation, so a strong economy and new international trade deals post-Brexit are very important for all of us who live there. The Prime Minister has told the House that over the weekend she met the leaders of America, China, Japan and India to talk about new trade deals. May I say to her that that sounds to me like a very good start and a very good weekend’s work?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. May I also recognise the important role that Kettering plays in the economy of the country? When we see these new trade deals come into place, I am sure that his constituents and others across the country will benefit from them.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Brexit will not weaken the fight against terrorism? Will we retain full membership of Europol and Eurojust?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady will know, I have stood at this Dispatch Box in the past and defended our membership of Europol and a number of other arrangements we have in the security field, such as SIS II—the Schengen information system—and various others. As we are in formal negotiations with the EU, such matters will of course be matters for those negotiations, but I am clear that we want to continue to retain our co-operation on matters relating to crime and counter-terrorism. Some of the arrangements with other European countries are outside the EU. We want to maintain that co-operation because it is important not only for us but for countries in the EU.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

What conversations did the Prime Minister have with her fellow leaders about the growing crisis on the Korean peninsula, and what does she see as the UK’s role in that crisis? Might part of it be further restrictions on British banks, two of which recently had warrants issued against them for inadvertently trading with North Korean businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

I had several discussions with other leaders about what is happening on the Korean peninsula and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s activities—particularly with President Xi, because China’s role is crucial. It is the country with the greatest leverage in relation to North Korea, and I have urged President Xi—as have others, I believe—to exercise that leverage. We want to see the denuclearisation of North Korea.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister talks about boosting trade, but what discussions has she had with other leaders about our open skies agreement with the USA, which depends on our relationship with the European Union? There is of course considerable concern for the aviation industry and airports such as Stansted, which plan ahead by 12 to 18 months. Time is very short.

[The Prime Minister]

The open skies agreement was referenced in the bilateral I had with President Trump.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her comments over the weekend and today condemning President Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris agreement. I encourage her to keep the UK in the global vanguard on climate change by publishing a clean-growth plan as quickly as possible, so that those who are more reluctant on the matter can see the enormous value of a green economy.

[The Prime Minister]

The UK’s record on this issue is good. We can already point to the actions we have taken here in the UK, but we will of course be looking to do more in future—for example, on air quality. We can already show the action we have taken and the benefit it has had. As I said in my statement, there is no contradiction between decarbonisation and a growing economy.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Is a bad trade deal with the United States better than no deal?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be working to negotiate a good trade deal with the United States.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will recall that the recently deceased Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would have included grotesque provisions allowing private global corporations to prosecute legitimate democratic Governments. Will she reject any future trade deal that includes such provisions?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the concern raised when the TTIP arrangements were being discussed and negotiated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as we look to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, we will want to negotiate a deal that is in the United Kingdom’s best interests.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

For all the progress against Daesh, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Syria remain under siege from the evil al-Assad Government. Will the Prime Minister look again at securing multilateral agreement to get aid into those besieged towns and cities?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue; we regularly discuss with our coalition partners and others the possibility of getting that aid in. As he will know, there have been some attempts to ensure that aid can get through to those besieged civilians, but they have not always—[Interruption.] He says, “Try again”; I have to say that we do regularly raise this issue. The best answer is to find a solution to the situation in Syria that leads to a stable Syria in which those civilians are no longer being besieged.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In a summit of extraordinarily awkward moments that would rival an episode of “The Addams Family”, perhaps the most bizarre moment was when President Trump’s seat was taken by his daughter. The Prime Minister did not seem to bat an eyelid, presumably because she expects somebody else to take her seat soon. Who does she hope that will be—the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or the Chancellor?

[The Prime Minister]

On Ivanka Trump taking President Trump’s seat, it followed a morning session in which we had launched the women entrepreneurs financing initiative, which was developed by Ivanka Trump and the World Bank, so the move was entirely reasonable.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is welcome that the Prime Minister raised the issue of the dumping of Chinese steel with President Xi, but, quite frankly, words are cheap; it is action that matters. Will she please tell the House what specific actions will be taken to ensure that China starts playing by the rules?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the action that we have taken here in the United Kingdom to support our steel industry. The last G20 took the decision that the Global Forum would be the basis on which work will be done internationally to look at this issue of excess capacity in steel. That has not worked as well as people had hoped when it was set up under the Chinese presidency, but it is exactly that that we want to see, along with a ministerial meeting to look at excess steel capacity later this year.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the NHS will be excluded from any trade deal with the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

I am conscious that that was an issue that was raised in relation to the TTIP deal. A concern that people had was that, somehow, that was about changing the NHS. We will not change the national health service. The TTIP deal was never going to impact on the NHS in the way that the Opposition suggested.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Not all G20 countries have made the same sort of progress that we have in this country in relation to racist and discriminatory language. Was that an issue that she discussed with the G20 leaders, and does she agree that, where it happens, organisations should take decisive and swift action?

[The Prime Minister]

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it behoves us all to ensure that we use appropriate language at all times.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Dieter Kempf, president of the Federation of German Industries, stated that, following Brexit,

“it will be extraordinarily difficult to avert negative effects on British businesses in particular.”

Has the Prime Minister got any closer to carrying out an economic assessment of the UK leaving the single market?

[The Prime Minister]

What is very clear is that we want to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union, which gives us access to the single market. Anybody who is looking at the economic impacts that take place as a result of leaving the single market should recognise that the most important single market to the nations within the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to ending modern slavery and her desire for other countries to follow the UK’s lead, why does she think it takes her Home Office more than two years to investigate the case of a woman in my constituency who is a victim of rape, slavery and trafficking? What kind of example is she setting for the G20 there?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not aware of the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises. He talks about an investigation of the case of rape. That is a matter not for the Home Office but for the police.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Following the questions by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the Prime Minister said that our membership of Euratom is inextricably linked with our membership of the European Union, and yet we have been members of Euratom for longer than we have been members of the European Union, so how can that be the case? Will the Government rethink our arrangements in terms of Euratom, which is so important both for our civil nuclear sector and for access to the best radiotherapy treatments?

[The Prime Minister]

The fact is that the treaty makes it clear that there is a link between membership of the European Union and membership of Euratom. Across this House, we are all agreed that we want to ensure that we can still maintain the arrangements and relationships that currently exist under Euratom, but they will be on a different basis in future. There is no argument that we want to maintain those relationships.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and note her efforts to reform the World Trade Organisation rules in order that they keep up with the services and digital sectors, which are crucial to the British economy. Does she agree that any reform of the WTO rules will take longer than the time we have left before the UK crashes out of EU without a trade deal in 2019?

[The Prime Minister]

One point of my comments at the G20 was that we need to speed up how the WTO considers these issues. Looking at the trade rules around the digital economy is not being started from scratch; the WTO has been doing it for some time. We just need to ensure that we get on with it and get those rules set.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that she wants to coax the United States back into the Paris agreement. Will she consider strengthening her negotiating hand by suggesting to President Trump that there will be no negotiations on a free trade deal until they come back into the agreement, or is securing a free trade deal with the United States more important than securing the future of the planet?

[The Prime Minister]

We want to ensure that we get a good trade deal with the United States, because that would be to the benefit of people here, providing prosperity, economic growth and jobs across the UK. We will continue to press on the climate change agreement as well, and, as I say, I am encouraging President Trump, as are others, to find a way back into the Paris agreement. I think that that is important for us all, but meanwhile we will continue to do our bit through the application of the Paris agreement.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) wanted to make a point of order—

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No? Okay. I was going to say that if he wanted to do so, it would normally happen after the statements but, as it appertained to the previous statement, he could raise it now if he wished. He does not, so that is fine. Thank you.

Export Licensing: High Court Judgment

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

16:40

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the High Court judgment on export licensing. We welcome the divisional court’s judgment today dismissing the claim by the Campaign Against Arms Trade for a judicial review of decisions regarding exports to Saudi Arabia for possible use in the conflict in Yemen. We are grateful to the court for the careful and meticulous way in which the evidence from both sides has been considered in reaching this judgment.

The judgment recognises the rigorous and robust processes that we have in place across Government to ensure that UK defence exports are licensed consistently with the Government’s consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. These criteria give effect to an EU common position setting out rules for assessing military exports. They were introduced in October 2000 and last updated in March 2014. The consolidated criteria, used to assess each export licence application, cover: our international obligations, including sanctions; human rights and international humanitarian law; armed conflicts; regional peace and security; national security and the security of our allies; terrorism; risk of diversion; and the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country.

The claim challenged decisions not to suspend extant licences for the sale or transfer of arms or military equipment and to continue to grant new licences for such transfers. The judgment states that these decisions were lawful and rational. It describes the Government’s decision making about export licensing as

“highly sophisticated, structured and multi-faceted”.

We note the application to appeal and will continue to defend the decisions challenged. We remain confident that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world.

The central issue in relation to defence exports to Saudi Arabia in the context of the conflict in Yemen is Criterion 2c of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria—that is, that the Government will not grant a licence if there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We have sufficient information to carry out proper risk-based assessments against Criterion 2c. The situation has been kept under close review and to date we have not refused licences on Criterion 2c grounds because we have assessed—based on all the information available to us, including information not publicly available—that the clear risk threshold has not been reached. The judgment says that, on the evidence, we were rationally entitled to conclude that this threshold has indeed not been reached.

The exercise undertaken to inform these assessments has, in the words of the judgment,

“all the hallmarks of a rigorous and robust, multi-layered process of analysis carried out by numerous expert Government and military personnel, upon which the Secretary of State could properly rely”.

In addition to a considered analysis by the Ministry of Defence of allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law, there has been intensive engagement with the Saudis at the highest level, stressing the need to comply with international humanitarian law, to investigate all incidents of concern and ensure that lessons are learned. Through this engagement, and our long-standing relationship with the Saudis, the UK Government have developed a higher degree of insight into Saudi military processes and procedures adopted in Yemen than might be expected for a country that is not party to the conflict. We have also considered public commitments to comply with international humanitarian law made by the Saudis, and monitored and analysed developments on the ground.

Each of these strands takes into account a wide range of sources and analyses, including those of a sensitive nature to which other parties, such as non-governmental organisations and the UN, do not have access. Taken together, these strands of information and analysis, which are reviewed regularly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in comprehensive reports to the Foreign Secretary, have enabled Ministers to take informed decisions about the overall Criterion 2c position and individual export licence applications. They provide a sound basis on which the Foreign Secretary is able to advise me, as the Secretary of State for International Trade, on these points.

That the assessment has been that the issue of military exports to Saudi Arabia is “finely balanced” is seen by the judgment as instructive and points to the

“anxious scrutiny…given to the matter and the essential rationality and rigour of the process in which the Secretary of State was engaged.”

As the judgment states, on the basis of this information and analysis, we were rationally entitled to conclude that Saudi Arabia has put processes in place to secure respect for compliance with international humanitarian law, and that Saudi Arabia has been, and remains, genuinely committed to compliance with international humanitarian law. The Saudis have engaged and continue to engage constructively with the UK on these matters.

We do not receive this court judgment as a signal to do anything other than to continue to take our export control responsibilities very seriously. Our policy is to assess licence applications on a case-by-case basis against the rigorous tests set out in the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. We will not grant a licence if to do so would be inconsistent with these criteria. We will continue to keep the situation in Yemen under close scrutiny and base our export licensing assessments on the most up-to-date information and analysis available. If we assess that the clear risk threshold under Criterion 2c of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria has been reached, we will not hesitate to refuse export licences and suspend licences already in circulation. I commend this statement to the House.

16:44

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and early sight of it. I know that he and the whole House will agree that the war in Yemen is a humanitarian tragedy. Thousands of people, including women and children, have been its victims both directly and indirectly through the loss of life-saving infrastructures such as hospitals and water supplies. All of us should, and do, mourn that keenly.

The question for the High Court was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that there was no risk that British weapons might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Since the bombing of Yemen began in March 2015, the UK has licensed more than £3.3 billion of arms to the Saudi regime, including: £2.2 billion of ML10 licences, dealing with aircraft, helicopters and drones; £1.1 billion of ML4 licences, dealing with grenades, bombs, missiles and countermeasures; and £430,000-worth of ML6 licences, dealing with armoured vehicles and tanks.

The Secretary of State knows that indiscriminate use of air strikes, the destruction of a country’s means of food production and the targeting of civilians are all classed as war crimes under international humanitarian law. Does he recall that a United Nations panel of experts reported in January 2016 that Saudi Arabian forces had engaged in “widespread and systematic” targeting of civilians? Does he recall that, on 21 July last year, the Government corrected their previous declarations that they had no evidence of any violations, and that the Foreign Secretary stated in September last year that the Government’s new position was that they had been unable to make an assessment and that the Saudi authorities were best placed to make such an assessment? Does he accept that the Foreign Secretary was wrong to franchise out our obligation in this way, and that we, not the Saudis, have the duty to assess whether there is a risk that British arms sold to the Saudis might be used in contravention of international humanitarian law?

Does the Secretary of State recall that evidence revealed in the High Court in February this year showed that the civil servant at the head of export control had provided advice to a previous Secretary of State recommending that the UK suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia

“given the gaps in knowledge about Saudi operations”?

Can he explain to the House why that recommendation was overruled by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who sits alongside him?

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Committees on Arms Export Controls should be set up in this Parliament without delay so that export licensing for arms sales can come under the necessary parliamentary scrutiny?

Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s judgment did not seek to rule on whether the Government were correct in concluding that there was no clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law, but rather on whether, in so concluding, they had reached a decision that could be considered rational, given the procedures they had adopted and the evidence they had considered? Does he further accept that if those procedures themselves were defective, or the evidence the Government considered was insufficient, misleading or even simply not comprehensive, it follows that the decision, however rational within its own parameters, could be deeply flawed, and this country might be at grave risk of violating our obligations in international humanitarian law?

The Government relied on material they brought forward only in closed hearing. That evidence could not be seen or heard by the claimant—the Campaign Against Arms Trade—or its lawyers, Leigh Day. As such, the court ruling that the Government’s decision was a rational one, given the procedures and evidence they considered, was based on secret evidence, which it was impossible to challenge. Does the Secretary of State accept that the court judgment makes specific reference to the substantial body of evidence presented in open session, which in fact suggests that a clear risk does exist that British arms might be used in violation of international humanitarian law? Will he agree to make the evidence that was available only in closed session available to Members of this House on Privy Council terms or, indeed, to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

Does the Secretary of State agree that we would all wish this country not only to adopt the highest ethical standards and controls but to be seen to adopt them, and that it would be helpful if he could now give his assurance to the House that it is his considered view that not only were the Government rational in adopting the view they did, given the procedures they followed and the evidence they considered, but that there is, to his certain knowledge, no risk whatever that UK arms might be used by Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war in any way that might constitute a violation of our obligations in international humanitarian law?

[Dr Fox]

May I say, first, that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Yemen is indeed a humanitarian disaster that is begging for a political solution, to enable us to carry out our diplomatic efforts and our humanitarian efforts? I doubt whether anyone in the House would disagree with that.

The hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in terms of what the court case was about. There were three grounds of challenge in court: first, failure to ask the correct questions and to make sufficient inquiries; secondly, failure to apply the suspension mechanism; and, thirdly, irrationally concluding that there was no clear risk under Criterion 2c. All these grounds have been dismissed by the court.

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about targeting. As a former Defence Secretary, I say to him that the MOD has gone to the nth degree to improve the ability of the Saudis to target more effectively, including through training by UK personnel. That is one of the biggest advances we have helped the Saudis to make in this.

The hon. Gentleman says that the UN and the NGOs had set out their own reservations about what had happened, but as the judgment made clear, they did not have sight of all the information that the judges were able to look at. He said there were gaps in the Government’s knowledge, but the court again made it clear that the Government had not only the ability to assess what the gaps in that knowledge might have been, but the appropriate means of redressing that. I remind him that the criteria we operate are part of the EU consolidated criteria—they are not UK Government unilateral criteria.

I take exception to the hon. Gentleman’s final point. I simply do not accept that if we have closed sessions it somehow makes the judgment less valid. I do not accept that we cannot have closed sessions that protect our national security or the personnel involved in our national security. Our sources need to be protected. I listened to the argument he makes but I simply cannot bring myself to accept it.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

At the end of his statement my right hon. Friend referred to steps that could be taken if it were found that Saudi Arabia were misusing the arms that we supply. Will he expand on that a bit? The issue has come up before in the Committees on Arms Export Controls. If we supplied a consignment of sophisticated weapons for use in one way and it was used differently, or abused in defiance of the laws of war, what could we do to rectify the situation?

[Dr Fox]

As my right hon. Friend knows from his experience, there are a number of criteria for refusals and revocations; if he has not seen the list, I will ensure that he is sent it. If we believed that we were not able to convince ourselves that we were operating entirely within the consolidated criteria, we could suspend extant licences and refuse new ones. As I made very clear, if we believed that we were not fully in line with the criteria, we would do so.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement. I apologise for my hoarse voice—I think I shouted a bit too much in excitement at London Pride on Saturday.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights campaign groups believe that UK and US weapons have been used against Yemeni civilians. As things stand, 10,000 civilians have been killed, 50,000 wounded and 3 million displaced. Today’s judgment raises a number of questions. We pay tribute to Campaign Against Arms Trade, which has taken the Government to court and forced them to explain themselves. We acknowledge CAAT’s plan to appeal this decision and wish it well, but the UK Government should be coming to this house with the facts at all times, not having to be dragged through the courts for the public to get a full explanation.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it cannot be beneficial if the public lose confidence in the Government over their relationship with a supposed ally—one that is in flagrant breach of international humanitarian law in Yemen? Let us not forget that Saudi Arabia, the UK’s largest weapons client, has bought more than £3 billion-worth of British arms in the past two years. UK and EU arms sales rules state that export licences cannot be granted if there is a “clear risk” that the equipment could be used to break international humanitarian law.

The Secretary of State says that he takes this very seriously. He will know that our former colleagues Angus Robertson and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh were strong advocates for the re-establishment of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which the UK Government promised before the election would be reconvened. When will that happen, and when will the first meeting take place? Can he give us categorical assurances that the election does not mean that such an important Committee will be kicked into the long grass?

[Dr Fox]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. As the judgment set out, the case focused on the airstrikes conducted by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia in support of the legitimate Government of Yemen against the Houthi rebellion. We need to put on record that that is the origin of the conflict. Of course the humanitarian issues in Yemen are deeply troubling to all of us; we have all seen the pictures. The United Kingdom, through our various agencies and Government Departments, has been fulfilling as much of our diplomatic and humanitarian actions as we can in the circumstances. This will only be brought to an end by a political settlement, not by a military settlement.

The hon. Lady talks about the “clear risk” test. The judgment could not have been clearer that the Government met the “clear risk” test of criterion 2c in the way they carried this out.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I have absolutely no objection to such a Committee being set up. In fact, I think it is beneficial to us to ensure at all times the highest reputation of our probity in these matters. I would have absolutely no objection whatsoever to such a Committee being in place.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the detail of the judgment makes clear what a great job his civil servants, and other civil servants and officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, have done and the rigorous way in which they have gone about their responsibilities? The judgment states that the process was “highly sophisticated, structured” and “multi-faceted”. They deserve congratulations today.

[Dr Fox]

I do not think that the judgment could have been more unequivocal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We have been utterly vigorous in the process. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the MOD and the Department for International Trade have worked extremely closely. Our officials have done a wonderful job. I am not sure that they necessarily appreciated the number of letters between us to ensure that the process worked as tightly as it has, but I am sure that they will all feel totally vindicated by the judgment on the way in which they have carried out their duties on behalf of this country’s international reputation and law.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the judgment, which demonstrates the robustness of the Export Control Act 2002, which was introduced by a Labour Government. It also supports the hard-working defence workers in our industry. The judgment states that the coalition did not deliberately target civilians and that the Saudis have procedures to abide by the principles of international humanitarian law. In the light of that, may I urge the Secretary of State to make representations to the Saudis to publish the outcomes of their own inquiries into the alleged incidents?

[Dr Fox]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I have said, I think we have the most robust system in existence on defence exports. We have been very clear with the Saudis that they have to carry out investigations into incidents and make those investigations clear to the United Kingdom Government, and we had to be very clear that, if we were to license further defence exports, those lessons had been learned and that mechanisms had been put in place to ensure that they would not happen again.

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

Given that the High Court has today found that the Government have been meticulous in their export licensing processes, will the Secretary of State inform the House how much this court case is going to cost the taxpayer in legal fees?

[Dr Fox]

I hesitate a little because there may well be an appeal and we may not yet be at the end of the legal process, but to date the case has cost UK taxpayers somewhat in excess of £600,000.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State and the Government may have won this legal skirmish, but they certainly have not won the moral case and there are still many unanswered questions about the relationship and the terrible situation in Yemen. He said that he was confident, but the court judgment makes it clear that he was anxious. In fact, he wrote to the Foreign Secretary:

“I am concerned that the issue…continues to be finely balanced... I ask that you commission a further detailed assessment…and send me updated advice”,

and

“that you seek advice from”

senior Government lawyers “before making your recommendation.”

Why was the International Trade Secretary anxious? Was it because of the civilian deaths, the use of cluster bombs or the attacks on humanitarian supplies in operations, including water and sanitation supplies that could have been so critical in preventing the cholera epidemic?

[Dr Fox]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the matter, but I really would not describe today’s landmark case as a “skirmish”. I think that everyone in the House would be well advised to read the full judgment. It is my job to be anxious about these things. It is my job to give the nth degree of scrutiny, because lives are potentially lost if we make the wrong judgments. It is the judgment of myself, the Foreign Secretary and other senior Ministers that gives us such anxiety. Were we to be cavalier, the hon. Gentleman would be absolutely right to criticise us. When we take the nth degree of care about the judgments we make, as previous Governments have done, he ought to be very grateful that we are doing so in the country’s interest.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The judgment comes from an independent judiciary and underscores the robustness of the assessment of export licence applications. He will be aware, I hope, that Saudi Arabia is going through self-authored and hugely welcome modernisation and change. Can he assure me that those changes within the kingdom will be taken into account when considering future export licence applications to our strong and reliable ally in the middle east?

[Dr Fox]

We take all information into account when coming to a judgment. We look across the information from the FCO, the MOD and my Department to see what is happening, and we put the whole picture together before we come to a judgment. We can hardly be accused of spending too little time or looking at too little evidence in coming to the right conclusion.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Of course we accept the judgment of the court, because we believe in the rule of law. However, how does this help the Yemeni people? So far, 10,000 people have died, 14 million people have been displaced and 200,000 people are suffering from cholera. The Secretary of State is a former Foreign Minister and a former Defence Secretary. After the statement, will he go back to the Foreign Office and get everyone back around the negotiating table—please?

[Dr Fox]

The Government, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are leaving no stone unturned in their attempts to get the peace process driven forward. Many attempts have been made to do so, and it is in all our interests to stop this dreadful humanitarian disaster. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The parties need to understand that the solution cannot be a purely military one; it has to be political.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

I, too, welcome today’s landmark ruling on a very difficult case. There are tens of thousands of defence workers, many of them in my constituency, whose jobs depend on the deals that are done. Can the Secretary of State assure me that we will continue to work with the Saudis to ensure accurate targeting and robust terms of arms sales?

[Dr Fox]

Of course we will continue to work with the Saudis to get an improvement in the position, to make sure that any decisions we take are within the criteria. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a lot of jobs in this country depend on our defence industry. Were campaigns such as that of the CAAT to be successful, there would be a rapid proliferation of new defence companies trying to set up around the world, and there would actually be less control over proliferation, rather than more.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports is crucial, so I welcome what the Secretary of State said in response to challenges on the Committees on Arms Export Controls. It is vital that those Committees are re-established soon. May I ask the Government to look again at the question of an independent UN-led investigation into all alleged violations of international humanitarian law, by both sides, in the Yemen conflict?

[Dr Fox]

We have never had any objection to an independent UN inquiry into that. Part of the trouble, however, as set out in the judgment, was the availability of evidence—especially in open session—to such an inquiry. When Members read the full judgment, they will see why there is such significance to it. I am entirely open-minded about any future UN inquiry.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

How many licences have been refused?

[Dr Fox]

There are a number of different criteria, and they are assessed on a regular basis. There were 366 refusals or revocations in 2016. Eight different categories of refusals and revocations are set out. To be helpful, I will make a copy of those categories available in the Library, if it does not have one already.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the judgment does not affirm that there was no risk of IHL breaches in Yemen; that the judge acknowledged significant evidence that suggested that there was, or is, a risk of such breaches; and that the UK Government remain very heavily dependent on the Saudis’ guarantees that they are not targeting civilians?

[Dr Fox]

It is impossible to sell anything to anybody with no risk attached. That is why we have a clear risk test in the consolidated criteria. We are in close touch with the Saudis, to a degree that I have never known before with a country that is party to a military dispute, in seeing how they do their targeting and understanding their methods and information. We have been closely helping to instruct them in ways to minimise civilian casualties in future.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

I have had the opportunity to travel to Saudi Arabia and visit the targeting centre in Riyadh, where targets in Yemen are allocated. Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as exporting hardware, we export a doctrine of responsible use, which, at the end of the day, saves lives?

[Dr Fox]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we export not just the doctrine, but the professional expertise and training that can help to give effect to that doctrine.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Médecins Sans Frontières is reporting today that Yemenis are afraid to go to and to stay in the cholera treatment centre in Abs, 50 km from the frontline, since it was bombed by Saudi Arabia last August, killing 19 people. The Joint Incidents Assessment Team declared this atrocity an “unintentional mistake”, as it did in relation to the facilities at Haydan and Razeh in Saada and Houban in Taiz, all of which were hit by Saudi bombs. How many hospitals protected by international humanitarian law will the Secretary of State allow to be hit by Saudi Arabia before he stops selling it bombs?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Lady talks as though there is only one party in this dispute in that part of the world. Unfortunately, that is not the case. As I say, we take the key risk criteria very seriously. I am afraid that making the sort of rather uninformed points she has made for propaganda purposes does not actually help the humanitarian situation.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that among our many security objectives and values, keeping faith with important allies and being a reliable security partner should be among the most important, so that our allies can see that we take such important decisions rigorously, with the due process that they deserve and under the rule of law?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Protection of our allies and working with our allies is extremely important, but it is also important that our allies themselves understand that we will rigorously apply the criteria that we have set out and on which we are parties to an international agreement. Getting the balance right between those things is exactly what the Government have sought and are set to achieve.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State please enlighten us about why he does not take more notice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s reports on countries of concern for human rights and repression?

[Dr Fox]

Perhaps we are talking about a different judgment, because this judgment makes it very clear that we did take very clear account of the advice given by the Foreign Office and, indeed, that we sought further advice from the Foreign Office when it was necessary to do so.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that closed sessions are absolutely standard in litigation of this nature, and that it is absolutely wrong to make such a point to seek to undermine a clear and impartial ruling of the High Court that has confirmed the rigorous and detailed scrutiny applied to sensitive arms export decisions?

[Dr Fox]

I have to say that I think there is a danger in making such an attack on the court system, not least because secret or classified evidence was open to challenge by the special advocates representing the claimants in this case.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of reports by the BBC and the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information in relation to the sale of surveillance and decryption technology to Saudi Arabia by British companies via their Danish subsidiaries. This technology has been used to crush internal dissent, and it arguably contravenes Criterion 5 restrictions due to the potential impact on UK security. Will the British Government review the legislation and oversight procedures governing sales of surveillance and decryption technology?

[Dr Fox]

If any individual or organisation has evidence that they believe quite clearly illustrates wrongdoing, they should bring it to the attention of the Government in detail.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Today’s judgment clearly shows that the UK is very robust in its licensing criteria, but in the light of this decision will the Secretary of State reassure the House that under this system decisions to grant such licences are undertaken and assessed in line with international humanitarian law?

[Dr Fox]

The judgment makes it very clear that that is the case. I think that those who criticise the UK system should look at how robust we are in comparison with other countries. It would do everybody in this country good to recognise how robust and clear we are in the decisions that we make and how transparent we are in our conduct.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State rightly draws attention to the robust nature of the wording in the document produced by the court. This judgment relates to a decision under the EU consolidated criteria. Does he agree that it will be extremely important that we continue to maintain controls of arms exports that are as least as strong in future as they are under the existing EU consolidated criteria?

[Dr Fox]

It is slightly worrying to me how often I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I find myself doing so again today. It is not what the criteria are called, but what they contain that matters. Their content has clearly stood the rigour of the Court’s scrutiny today. I completely agree with him that it would be wayward, to say the least, for any Government to consider criteria any less rigorous than those we have today.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) does not look worried at all; he looks in a state of high contentment that the Secretary of State agrees with him. Anybody would think, as far as the hon. Gentleman was concerned, that Christmas had come early, but I suppose it is always rather good when people agree with one.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend please tell the House whether, in his view, the High Court had before it all the information it needed to reach the judgment that has been handed down today?

[Dr Fox]

That was very much the view of the Court.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State, as he continues to promote the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, what regard his Government have to the fact that 157 people were executed there last year, including minors, and that four young men who were arrested as minors, Dawoud al-Marhoon, Abdullah al-Zaher, Ali al-Nimr and Abdulkareem al-Hawaj, remain at imminent risk of execution by crucifixion?

[Dr Fox]

By our engagement with Saudi Arabia, we are able to raise any reservations we have about international humanitarian law and human rights, which we do.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

In the last Parliament, it took quite some time for the Committees on Arms Export Controls to be set up. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Leader of the House to see whether that important Committee can be set up as quickly as possible?

[Dr Fox]

The usual channels will have heard my hon. Friend’s view. As I have made clear, I have no objection to such a Committee being in place. It is a balanced judgment as to whether we have such a Committee or not. As I said, any Committee that looks into the probity of Ministers’ decisions should be welcomed by Ministers as well as by the House as a whole.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In 2013, the Government launched their action plan on business and human rights with great fanfare, but subsequent questions by me and others revealed that it appears to be little more than a piece of paper. It is certainly not an action plan. How does that supposed action plan inform our business relationship with Saudi Arabia, and how will it inform that relationship after this judgment?

[Dr Fox]

It will not be affected by the judgment because the judgment said that the Government had a rigorous, responsible and rational view of decisions on defence exports. I would have thought the House would be pleased that our systems are working so transparently and so well.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I visited Saudi Arabia as part of a cross-party delegation in April and have declared that in the register. It is right that our arms exports are subject to legal challenge, and everyone agrees about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, but I was surprised to learn, as were other members of the delegation, that 65,000 shells and rockets have been fired from Yemen into Saudi Arabia; that there have been civilian deaths and injuries in Saudi Arabia; and that civilians have been evacuated and displaced, and hospitals damaged, all in Saudi Arabia. Would my right hon. Friend welcome more balanced coverage of this distressing conflict?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend makes the very important point that this is not a conflict that Saudi Arabia or the coalition sought. They have a legitimate right of self-defence and a legitimate right to acquire the means of conducting that self-defence. It is clear that this is a bloody and brutal conflict and, as I said earlier, it requires a proper political settlement. That requires us to continue with our humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. He is absolutely right that it would not do any harm to have a little more of an objective view, rather than the one-sided blast that we see rather too often in this House and elsewhere.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Today’s judgment was unequivocal: where the Government have failed is in advancing the peace process in Yemen and, of course, that includes Saudi Arabia. When will the Government make progress on a peace settlement for that country?

[Dr Fox]

The Government are doing all they can to take that process forward. Would that it were so simple that we could unilaterally create a solution in that war-torn part of the world. We are doing what we can to help our allies reach that settlement and will continue to do so. It is a humanitarian disaster but, sadly, it is not unilaterally within our power to simply bring it to an end.

Points of Order

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

17:19

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will take the points of order now, because there is a slew of them, but the two hon. Gentlemen can wait. Point of order, Tracy Brabin.

[Tracy Brabin]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the most recent session of questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I raised the case of local employers misleading workers about their right to holiday pay. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), assured me that the Government

“have increased the powers open to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enforce those rights.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 458.]

However, I subsequently received a written answer from the same Minister stating:

“HM Revenue and Customs has no powers to sanction companies for withholding holiday pay.”

The Minister has given me two answers stating the complete opposite of each other, in the space of a few days. Clearly, one or other of those answers must be wrong, and, although I am relatively new to this place, I was given to understand that Ministers were under a particular obligation not to mislead the House, even if inadvertently. More important, this leaves us unable to say for certain what the Government are actually going to do about the problem that I raised. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on whether there is any way of bringing the Minister back to the House to tell us which of her answers is final?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, both for her point of order and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. It was also exceptionally helpful of her to attach to her proposed point of order the text of those two answers. I must say to the hon. Lady and to the House that textual exegesis is of the essence in these matters.

I have pored over the two answers, and have sought to reflect on whether they might in some way be not incompatible with each other, but such a conclusion is beyond my limited intellectual capacities. It certainly appears that the two answers are irreconcilable: one must be correct, and therefore, by definition, the other must not be. Apart from anything else, it is quite difficult to see how one can increase powers open to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs if in fact they have no such powers at all. So the matter does, I think, require some clarification.

The hon. Lady has certainly made her concern clear. The content of answers is not a matter for the Chair, but her concern has been conveyed to the Minister, in the sense that representatives of the Treasury Bench will have heard it, and her point will be recorded in the Official Report. If the Minister considers that she has unintentionally misled the House, I am sure that she will take steps to put the record straight. I advise the hon. Lady to watch this space, and see whether such an attempt at corrective action is made. If it is, she will be happy. If it is not, my advice to her would be to return to the matter through further questioning, or possibly, if necessary, in extremis, by recourse to the Chair.

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of arms export controls, which has been evidenced by the recent exchanges and by the judgment today, do you believe that there is anything to prevent the Committees on Arms Export Controls, or indeed any other Committees, from examining these important matters? Would they be able to review and look at classified information that was relevant to these matters—provided that the necessary security clearances were obtained—in much the same way as the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Mr Speaker]

Off the top of my head, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the only thing I can imagine preventing that would be a governmental refusal to divulge the information, on the grounds that it was classified and that the relevant Department or agency did not think that such sight by the Committee was necessary or desirable. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent it, and if such a Committee were to seek it, it might find that its search was successful—and I am sure that, if it had anything to do with the prodigious efforts of the hon. Gentleman, it would have a very good chance of being successful. I hope that that will do for now, because it is the best answer that I can offer.

[Stephen Twigg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the statement just now, there was strong cross-party support for the re-establishment of the Committees on Arms Export Controls. In the previous Parliament, that Committee ceased to meet because one of its component Select Committees, the Foreign Affairs Committee, voted to unilaterally leave it. May I ask you to use your good offices to ensure that what the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and the Scottish National party spokesperson said during the statement is fulfilled and we re-establish the Committees on Arms Export Controls as soon as possible?

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly think it would be very desirable for Parliament and for the scrutiny of the Executive branch by Parliament for that Committee to be re-established sooner rather than later. The word of caution or caveat that I insert, which the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is that, unless I am much mistaken, that Committee can be established only when what might be called the feeder or constituent Committees have themselves been established. That, of course, requires not merely the election of the Chairs of those Committees, which is due to take place on Wednesday of this week, but the election by the respective parties, by such methods as they have adopted, of their member contingents on those Committees.

I have not been given much encouragement to think that those Committees will be fully constituted by the time of the summer recess, although I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it would be perfectly possible fully to constitute all of the Select Committees by the time of the summer recess if there were a proper will to do so. If it were the case that none of the constituent political parties was interested in getting its act together, that would reflect very badly on them, to be frank, because the issue is not the interest of the party, but the interest of Parliament. If it transpired that some parties were ready to elect their members to those Committees and other parties were not, that would look very bad for the parties that were not ready. They have a responsibility in this matter.

I do not wish to say this unkindly, but, whoever is in government, it is absolutely natural that the zeal and enthusiasm to establish the Select Committees which scrutinise the Executive branch are never as obvious within the Executive branch as they are within Parliament. However, as Speaker, I am concerned about Parliament—Parliament exercising its rights, and Parliament doing its duty—and I would rather hope that, to put it bluntly, instead of faffing around, we could get on with this matter.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In defence of the former Foreign Affairs Committee, it must be said that I think that the reason for its withdrawal from the Committees on Arms Export Controls was the unauthorised leaking of a draft report; so that was a more complex situation than was first suggested.

However, reverting to the question of getting the Committees up and running, given that I understand that the 1922 Committee, for example, has not held its elections and it would normally handle the election of ordinary members to the Select Committees, is there any way that the resources of the House might be involved in assisting this process to get under way more quickly in the absence of the election of members of the executive of the 1922 Committee to administer this?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I take note of his first point, with which I will not quibble; I do not want to enter into the dispute about what caused the ceasing to operate of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, but I simply note what he said.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, I note that he said that, so far as his party is concerned, the officers of the 1922 Committee normally handle the election of members. To put it bluntly, if memory serves me correctly, what the officers of the 1922 Committee usually do in respect of their party—perhaps something similar operates in other parties—is simply oversee the count. Whether the officers of the 1922 Committee have or have not been elected is not a matter for the Chair—that is a party matter—but, frankly, overseeing the count does not require Einsteinian qualities; it is a pretty prosaic task.

I do not think it would be right to say that the resources of the House could be made available in what is essentially the oversight of a matter undertaken by parties. However, it would seem to be perfectly feasible, if my colleagues, the Deputy Speakers, were so willing, that they and I could volunteer our services to oversee the count, if the House thought that that would be helpful. My basic point stands: do colleagues want these Committees to be set up sooner rather than later? If they do not, that is a pity, but if they do, those of us who are of good will and can be relied upon to conduct the count perfectly fairly, would, I suspect, be very happy to offer our services. I could hardly be more explicit. We will leave it there for now. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg).

[Mr Speaker]

I call Diana Johnson to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Member has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.

Contaminated Blood

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

17:30

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, the need for the Government to establish an independent public inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal, which is the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. In his valedictory speech to this House on 25 April 2017, the then right hon. Member for Leigh outlined a dossier of extremely serious allegations amounting to criminal conduct on the part of individuals involved in the contaminated blood scandal. He said that, if the Government did not commit to a public inquiry

“by the time the House rises for the summer recess, I will refer my evidence to the police”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2017; Vol. 624, c. 1081.]

The then Under-Secretary of State for Health—the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon—asked him to submit his dossier of evidence to the Health Secretary, which he did. She assured the House that the Secretary of State would give it “the highest priority”. However, we have heard nothing since then, and we now have further unanswered questions that underline the need for an emergency debate.

First, the Daily Mail set out evidence last week that officials knew, as early as 1980, that 50 people with haemophilia a year were being infected with hepatitis C. Nothing was done about this for five years. Secondly, it has been reported in The Sunday Times that, on Friday 7 July, the Westminster leaders of all six non-Government parties in the House of Commons—including the Democratic Unionist party—wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister urging her to commit to a Hillsborough-style inquiry. Thirdly, the right hon. Andy Burnham yesterday reaffirmed his commitment to refer cases of alleged criminality to the police, and confirmed that he has an appointment with the police on 26 July.

We are now fast approaching the summer recess deadline, yet what little comment the Government have made has only added to the confusion and strengthened the case for an emergency debate. It would appear that the Secretary of State for Health has not considered the dossier, as was promised on 25 April. Last week, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of Commons responded to questions about the scandal: one from me, the other from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Neither of them addressed our direct questions about the need for a public inquiry. Indeed, both raised further confusion by referring to the financial support for those affected as “compensation”, contradicting the position taken by previous Ministers.

These recent developments have been extremely significant. The letter of 7 July raises the prospect that, if the matter of a public inquiry were put to a vote in the House, it would command the support of the majority of Members of Parliament. For all the reasons I have outlined, I believe that we now need an emergency debate. We need the Government to do the right thing and secure justice for those affected in this scandal, including justice for the 2,400 people who have already died.

[Mr Speaker]

I have listened carefully to the application from the hon. Member, and I am satisfied that the matter raised by her is proper to be discussed under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Member the leave of the House?

Application agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. I can inform the House that the debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 11 July, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the hon. Member’s application. She may wish to liaise either with my office or with the Clerks as to the precise wording, but it was referenced in her initial application to me and it conveys the gravamen of the issue in terms that are unmistakable. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Member and to the House, which has about 24 hours’ notice—perhaps a bit less than that—of the intended debate.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

17:35

[The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Everyone in the House knows the importance of being connected, whether through traditional means or, increasingly, through digital connections. Whether the issue is the next generation of broadband technology, better mobile phone coverage or preparing for the next generation of 5G, the Bill is all about improved connectivity. Whether we are talking about fixed networks in the ground or the next generation of mobile and wireless connectivity, what people care about is how well connected they are—good download and upload speeds, reliability, latency, and how quickly they get reconnected when there is a problem. It is a problem that we can all identify with, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say what a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair for the first time from the Dispatch Box, Dame Rosie?

Our task is to prepare for a world of considerably greater demand for digital connectivity. Just as Moore’s law states that the cost of computing halves each year, Nielsen’s law has seen the doubling of data demands every two years. World-class connectivity is important for people to function in the modern world, whether at work or at play. It will continue to transform our public services and bring efficiencies there, too, and it is important for all sectors in our economy. The challenge is always to stay a step ahead of need. We need the digital infrastructure that can support that, providing ubiquitous coverage so that no one is left out, and sufficient capacity to ensure that data can flow at volume and with speed and reliability to meet the demands of modern life.

All these connections rely on Britain laying more fibre-optic cable. Whether fibre all the way to the premise—to each home and business—or the fibre that underpins the mobile network, all modern connectivity runs off fibre. Around five years ago, the nation took a strategic decision to roll out high-speed broadband based largely on a part-fibre, part-copper network. Superfast broadband delivered in that way is today available to 93% of UK homes and businesses. We rank first among the big European states for superfast connections, and we are on track to reach 95% by the end of this year.

In mentioning that, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)? He did so much—he never lets me forget how much—to deliver the first-rate, high-quality superfast broadband connectivity to homes and businesses around the country that now allows us to say that 93% of people have access to, but do not necessarily take up, superfast broadband.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being so quick to take an intervention. May I suggest that he is being a little Panglossian and positive in his approach? As constituency MPs, we receive quite a number of complaints, and yet the grin on his face suggests quite the opposite.

[Matt Hancock]

That was me talking about what we have done so far—just wait until I talk about what we need to do in the future. I strongly agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do much more, which is what the bulk of my speech is all about. Indeed, it is what the Bill is all about. If she holds the view she espouses, I look forward to her marching through the Division Lobby later in support.

Precisely on the point raised by the hon. Lady, of course 7% of premises do not yet have access to superfast connections, so we are introducing the new broadband universal service obligation so that, by 2020, everyone has access to a minimum level of service. That will provide a vital safety net and ensure that nobody is left behind as the country takes these strides towards better connectivity.

Yet even this is not enough. Demand marches on. People’s needs and expectations have risen further, and will continue to rise. Yes, we need to celebrate what we have done so far, but we must also deliver deeper connectivity, now and in the future, to support a competitive market and to ensure that we get this infrastructure in the ground. We must work now to deliver the next generation of technologies, 5G and fibre over the decades ahead. This Bill is part of a suite of actions we are taking to boost Britain’s fibre. We will break down barriers to better broadband for business and get quicker connectivity for consumers.

First, in the Digital Economy Act 2017 we reformed the electronic communications code, which regulates agreements between people who provide sites and the digital communication operators. That new code will make it easier for electronic communications infrastructure to be deployed, maintained and upgraded. We are currently finalising the regulations needed to support the new code, which we plan to commence later this year when the work has been completed.

Secondly, with the separation of Openreach from BT we will see a more competitive market, with an Openreach that serves all customers well, rather than just focusing on BT. That decision has been largely welcomed by BT’s competitors and is the result of intense negotiations between Ofcom and BT. It is the right outcome and will ensure that Openreach delivers not just for its customers but for the whole country.

Thirdly, we are supporting the fibre roll-out through a £400 million digital infrastructure investment fund to help competitors in the market to reach scale and to deliver. The fund will improve access to commercial finance for alternative developers for full fibre infrastructure, helping them to accelerate roll-out plans and compete with the larger players.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will that assist those areas, of which there seem to be a great number in my constituency, where one part of, say, a market town or a small village has had its box upgraded by BT but users who are a few yards further away from the box, requiring longer reaches of copper wire, cannot get a decent service?

[Matt Hancock]

It may well help, but the universal service obligation is the thing that will really help those people, because it means everybody will have a right to a high-speed broadband connection. Some of those connections will be delivered by the next-generation full fibre connectivity and some of them by the existing technology, but our whole package of measures to deliver better broadband and quicker connectivity will ensure that we reach those people who, frustratingly, can be just a few yards further away from a box—or, indeed, who see the fibre go down in the road in front of their premises—but who do not have a connection.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill, which is essential for moving the country forward and making our businesses as strong as possible, but even in the centre of Taunton Deane and the county town of Taunton there are areas where people still cannot get fast broadband. Will the Minister tell them how quickly they might be able to take advantage of this new service?

[Matt Hancock]

The universal service obligation is in law to ensure that everybody can access the service by 2020, but that is an end date, a deadline. As I said earlier, we have now reached 93% of premises. Crucially, that is 93% of premises having access to broadband—they still have to take it up. In fact, everybody who takes up the service in a subsidised area puts more money into the pot so that we can give more people access to superfast broadband.

Just 42% of the country had superfast broadband in 2010, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage took up the reins of delivering it, but now 93% have access to it. We are on track to get to 95% at the end of the year, and then 100% of premises will have access to high-speed broadband by 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) can see, we are rolling that out. Crucially, that is delivering today’s technology—it delivers the needs of an average household today—but we also need to make sure we are ahead of the curve on the next generation of technology.

The idea of the digital investment fund is that it supports the commercial finance of alternative developers so we get more players into the market, rather than just having BT and Virgin, the two big players. The Government’s investment will be at least matched on the same terms by private sector investments so we expect it to capitalise more private investment and bring more than £1 billion of investment overall into full-fibre broadband, getting the really high speeds that some people need and want now, but many, many more will need and want in the future as these demands increase.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I want to refer back to the Minister’s remarks on the universal service obligation, which of course he is right to hail as a revolution in provision. The USO will be subject to a cost cap, so I wonder whether he will tell us when our constituents are likely to know what that cap is going to be and therefore whether he will be burnishing his credentials as a hero of rural Britain or not.

[Matt Hancock]

I know when to take a compliment as a threat. The truth is that this all depends on the technology. It may cost an awful lot to dig a trench and get a piece of fibre all the way to some places a long way from the existing network. However, new technologies are coming on stream, especially fixed wireless technologies, where a signal is beamed from one place to another. As a last resort, there are satellite technologies, which are good but not as reliable, that mean everyone can get connected. The aim is to get decent broadband speeds to every premises that wants them, making sure that as much of that as is feasibly possible is covered by a fixed network, but using technologies to get to the hardest to reach.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that 100% of properties will have access to this by 2020, but will he confirm what speeds they will have access to? At the moment, there is a range of 2 megabits per second for the universal service and 24 megabits per second and more for the superfast service. What range of speeds is he talking about when he refers to 100%?

[Matt Hancock]

We have said 10 megabits per second as a minimum, and that is Ofcom’s analysis of the needs of the average household today; this is about making sure there is a service everybody can use. As we ask people to pay their taxes, get their passports or do their rural payments service applications online, it is a perfectly reasonable request back to us in government that people should have a decent level of broadband. If people want the really tip-top level, they may have to pay more for it, and that is not unreasonable either. We are saying that there must be a decent level of high-speed broadband. At the moment, we have said 10 megabits per second as a minimum, but we have also said that that has to be reviewed in an upwards direction in due course.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I speak as someone whose constituency is one big roadworks, where a company called Gigaclear delivers fibre to premises, which is welcomed by people in even quite remote communities.

Will the Minister help us with concerns we might have about his discussions with the Valuation Office Agency, which, in my experience, seems not to understand the way the world is? At the click of a VOA bureaucrat’s mouse, the finances of a local unitary authority such as West Berkshire Council can be radically altered in terms of how networks are business rated.

[Matt Hancock]

I can tell my right hon. Friend two things. The first is that we are committed to a business rates review to look at these sorts of things for fibre currently in the ground; I am sure the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who are here on the Bench, will have heard what he has said.

The second thing is that at the heart of this Bill is making sure that new fibre that goes into the ground will have no such rates at all for the next five years, which is why we are here legislating today; we are making sure that companies such as the one he mentioned can get on and deliver this fibre, digging it in the ground as efficiently and cheaply as is reasonably possible, and we reduce the tax on that.

The fourth reason why fibre is important is for implementing our 5G strategy, including exploring commercial options to improve mobile coverage on our roads and rail networks, because we want mobile phone coverage where people live, work and travel. We are working with Ofcom to make sure that UK regulations on spectrum and infrastructure are 5G ready. We are working across Government with the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government to make sure that we get right the rules on putting the infrastructure in place. We are also supporting 5G pilots, the first of which we will roll out next year, making Britain a global leader in 5G. All 5G roll-out is supported by fibre—there cannot be a 5G mast without the fibre that connects it to the network.

Fifthly, our £200 million local full-fibre networks programme is about supporting local bodies to stimulate the market for fibre connectivity in their areas. Fibre cannot be delivered by some sort of entirely nationalised, top-down, taxpayer-funded system; it has to be done in collaboration with the private sector. The local full-fibre networks programme is being delivered in support of local bodies to encourage the market to provide more fibre connectivity. For example, public sector anchor tenancies will bring together public sector broadband demand in an area to create an anchor customer, thereby making sure that investors know there is enough revenue to reduce the risk of building a new network. Such networks will connect directly into public sector buildings such as schools and hospitals. At the same time, they will improve connectivity for those who work in our vital public services and bring fibre closer to more homes and businesses, allowing them to be connected, too. The first wave of projects will begin later in the year. This is a great example of the public and private sectors working together to improve connectivity for all.

Sixthly, our business broadband fibre connection vouchers are incredibly exciting for people like me who are frustrated at the poor quality of broadband being delivered to businesses. In the previous Parliament, we had a really effective voucher scheme for superfast broadband for businesses. The new vouchers will be trialled by the end of the year and will be for full-fibre connections for businesses. The scheme will be rolled out more widely in 2018 to help businesses to get the best fibre broadband, because we know that so many jobs and so much business growth depends on it.

The Bill takes a further step. Business rates are an important source of revenue for local services, but have long been cited as a barrier to investment by the telecoms sector. There has been consternation—as articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—at how the rates have been calculated. There was a perception of a disparity or lack of fairness between the rates paid by some operators, such as BT and Virgin Media, and smaller alternative networks such as CityFibre and Gigaclear. The rating methodology is of course a matter for the independent VOA, which has been working on this issue with the sector, but it is complex work and we do not have a moment to waste.

We recognise the urgent need to go the extra mile, so in last year’s autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a 100% rate relief for all new fibre networks for five years from April 2017, with any relief backdated to that date. We will fund and fuel a full-fibre future, and we have introduced this Bill early in the Parliament to bring forward the legislative changes required to make that happen. The Bill will introduce new rules into each provision for business rates to allow us to vary the rates bill for telecommunication infrastructure, which will be set so that no rates are paid on new fibre for five years from the April just gone.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Does the Minister think the five-year period for business rates relief will be sufficient to incentivise the market players to get on and roll out fibre broadband? Will he try to ensure that as they do that we get coverage throughout the country and they do not just start in the easy-to-reach areas first?

[Matt Hancock]

First, there is no doubt that the five-year business rates holiday shows that we are reducing the cost of getting fibre into the ground. Secondly, it is time limited, so my message to alternative providers, as well as the big players, is to get on with it and make use of the relief while it is available. Thirdly, it gives us time for the business rates review and the VOA to look at the complexities over a reasonable period and come forward with a long-term, sustainable scheme. Sixthly—fourthly? I cannot remember which point I was up to, but I am sure that Hansard will make this bit sound really eloquent. I have completely lost my train of thought!

The final thing I was going to say is that the five-year business rates holiday will also give us the opportunity to decide, towards its end, whether five years has been long enough and whether we want to extend it. The fact that it is a five-year period demonstrates that providers should get on with it. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) that it will be no shorter than five years, and I am grateful for her intervention because it allowed me to get completely confused with my own points.

In total, our efforts are part of measures worth £1.1 billion to support the market-led roll-out of fibre broadband and ensure that we are at the front of the 5G queue. There is still a lot more work to be done, and we will consult shortly on the technical details of implementation. The relief will reduce the costs of deployment, thereby incentivising the market to deliver where it otherwise would not have. I hope that, in the spirit of cross-party collaboration, the Bill will get the support of Government and Opposition Members, as it will benefit people right across the United Kingdom. We want to see a country in which people are better connected and everyone can get online and reach their full potential, and to make sure that nobody is left behind. The Bill provides a step on that journey, and I commend it to the House.

17:56

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

May I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a pleasure to see you in your rightful place. I wish to take this opportunity to welcome my shadow Communities and Local Government team: my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who has today agreed to act as my PPS.

The Opposition cautiously welcome the Government’s apparent commitment to provide financial relief for all new investment in full-fibre internet for five years. In the course of my speech, I shall set out why I say “cautiously”. Until the intervention from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the Minister had waxed lyrical for twenty minutes before coming to business rate relief, which is the subject of this very short Bill.

The Opposition welcome the opportunity finally to discuss a crucial piece of infrastructure policy—a policy that will have a huge impact on the potential investment opportunities for all our communities over the coming decades. It is rather ironic that we are talking about IT connections on a day when pretty much all the parliamentary internet connection is down. I have it on good assurance that the parliamentary information and communications technology officers are busily trying to reconnect MPs to the internet and their email accounts.

All Members will know that the policy in the Bill will affect every part of the country—north or south; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; urban or rural—so we have to get this right. I am sure Members will feel that acutely today as we and our staff struggle with the collapse of internet connection across the Westminster estate which I just mentioned.

We were expecting a larger, more substantial Bill, not least considering the scope of investment and certainty needed not only for full-fibre infrastructure but on business rates more widely. However, it appears that the Government have been in permanent listening mode for quite some time now, which would explain their decision to acquiesce in the concerns of independent and large internet providers who at the end of last year faced an excessive fourfold increase in their rateable values.

The UK’s main providers and the Broadband Commission have estimated that UK 5G infrastructure will outstrip the economic benefits of fibre broadband, which most of the country currently uses, by 2026, when it will be outdated. By 2026, therefore, the UK will reach a tipping point where the direct economic benefits of new 5G optical fibre internet will beat the conventional fibre broadband. Various estimates point to a boost to the UK economy of between £5 billion to £7 billion just six years from roll-out, with 5G broadband delivering economic growth almost twice as quickly as conventional fibre broadband used today. Much as with our railways and road links, the quicker the connection, the faster businesses will grow, particularly in an age when online sales, social media and direct online contact with buyers and sellers are becoming the norm.

A study by O2 has revealed that national 5G infrastructure will also add an extra £3 billion a year through secondary supply chain impacts, boosting overall UK productivity by a total of £10 billion, which, as I have already said, makes good, sound economic sense. With improved connectivity comes greater economic growth, more jobs and improved links between business hubs and individuals alike. Although today’s Bill will be welcomed by larger providers in the sector as it will relieve some of the burden that they face from increased business rates—£60 million is on offer, which is a big giveaway to them—I worry that it will do not as much as it should for the independent providers, and it will not come close to mitigating the fourfold increase that all providers have faced. Perhaps the Minister can give us some assurances when he winds up the debate. Providers are not the only ones who need assurances; consumers do, too, and they need to know that those costs will not be passed on to them.

Additionally, I am slightly disappointed that this Bill contains only partial measures, instead of the more detailed and wide-ranging set of proposals that were outlined in the Local Government Finance Bill, of which these measures were originally a part. I mention that Bill, which had successfully passed through Committee, as it included proposals on local business rate retention for local authorities as well as the legislation for business rate relief for new full-fibre broadband, which we are now discussing today. However, those fuller measures seem to have disappeared since the general election.

Since that election, I have asked the Secretary of State on three separate occasions about the progress that has been made on delivering business rate retention for local authorities. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), has something to say on that. He can intervene on me now or respond in his closing remarks. I ask him again: what is happening to retention and why has business rate relief for new 5G connectivity now been separated into this smaller, separate Bill?

As I have said, I have written to the Secretary of State about this matter and I await his response, although I hope that, by this stage, the Department will do less listening and more acting on this issue of business rate retention. In the spirit of the cross-party co-operation that the Prime Minister is now asking for, and in respect of the exchange of ideas and genuine dialogue between the Opposition and the Government, I suggest that perhaps we can work together on a shared future for local government finance. The local government sector deserves more than a policy and a financial black hole with which it is currently faced with the exclusion of the Local Government Finance Bill from the Queen’s Speech. At the same time, the Government are still announcing their intention to remove the revenue support grant. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that when he closes the debate.

The Secretary of State and I visited the LGA conference last week—admittedly we received slightly different receptions. I am sure that he was reminded again and again by representatives from councils of all political colours of the financial certainty that local authorities desperately need—specifically at a time when they have already absorbed budgets cuts of 40%. However, like me, they have received no updates and no certainty. While we are talking about an element of the business rate in this Bill, perhaps we can remind the Secretary of State that local authorities need to have that clarity and certainty for future financial planning. They need some idea from this Government of where the wider business rate policy is going.

I will repeat what I said during my speech to the Local Government Association: “The Secretary of State told local government that they faced a looming crisis in confidence. He’s wrong. It is this Government who are facing a looming crisis in confidence.” The lack of clarity on business rates and the botched business rates revaluations have left thousands of businesses facing cliff-edge increases in their rates. In addition, the Government’s support package and promises to review the revaluation process go nowhere near far enough.

It is clear that business rates are this Department’s ticking time bomb, which threatens to destroy high streets and town centres across the country. Labour advocates introducing statutory annual revaluations to stop businesses facing periodic and unmanageable hikes, and guarantees a fair and transparent appeals process. We will reform business rates, scrap quarterly reporting and end the scourge of late payments, because it is Labour which is the party of business. [Interruption.] Members can heckle, but the facts speak clearly: this Government have let down business and they have let down local government.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman just remind us of the Labour party’s policy on corporation tax rates?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. Labour would have increased corporation tax to pay for better public services, but our rates would still have been among the lowest in the G20. It is a question of priorities. We can put money where people want it—in a better NHS, in better local government and in better education—or we can have poorly funded public services and tax giveaways to those at the very top. For all its rhetoric about ending austerity, it seems quite clear that the Conservative party has not changed one iota. There was a further omission to this Bill—

[Kit Malthouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the reductions in corporation tax in the past few years have resulted in a massive increase in the cash collected by the Treasury?

[Andrew Gwynne]

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), it is a question of priorities. We can give tax cuts to big business, or we can invest in public services. The point is that we made a very clear choice—[Interruption.] We have differences of opinion on this. The hon. Gentleman feels that having the lowest corporation tax is a good thing, but I think that having a corporation tax that is among the lowest in the world with a better funded public—[Interruption.] It is not an anti-business rant. I am talking about being both pro-business and pro-public services. That is the choice, because our public services are on their knees. If this is the cross-party co-operation that the Prime Minister wants, I am afraid it will be a long time coming.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will not give way, because we are talking about infrastructure.

[Helen Whately]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

No, I have given way once to the hon. Lady, I will not do so again.

There is a further omission in this Bill—the exclusion of any real and meaningful legislative commitments on growing rural broadband. I am worried that there appears to be absolutely no mention in the body of the Bill or the explanatory notes of growing and expanding the UK’s superfast broadband in our rural areas, although the Minister touched on it and I think there is some consensus about its desirability.

Let me give a short anecdote. Last year, I was privileged to be in a delegation to Zambia for the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly. In the middle of Africa, in the middle of nowhere, on a visit to a health scheme near the Zambezi river, I received an almost-perfect 4G connection to my mobile phone. There are parts of my constituency where I do not get such a perfect 4G connection. We need to look at our internet connections, broadband connections and mobile telephone connections in this country so that we have the very best to support business, consumers and individuals.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, many families living in rural areas struggle to get anything close to fast broadband, let alone 5G, which is what we are discussing today. Many others struggle to get anything above 2 megabits per second, making most average use of day-to-day internet functions incredibly frustrating. The impact on rural businesses is steep, with the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs warning before the 2015 general election that rural communities are being overlooked for potential investment by businesses looking to expand and develop because certain regions have very poor digital connectivity. The then Chair of the Committee, the former Member for Thirsk and Malton, said:

“There is a risk in the current approach that improving service for those who already have it will leave even further behind those who have little or none.”

Rather than taking responsibility for this ever-growing chasm in our technology and identifying specific areas that desperately need investment, the Government have chosen to rely solely on the market to encourage improvements in any given area.

[Matt Hancock]

That is not the case. The Digital Economy Act 2017, which was the last Bill passed in the previous Parliament, gives us the power to require a universal service obligation so as to get high-speed broadband to everybody.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Well—[Interruption.] Exactly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton says, the Minister should share that with his Back Benchers. In all parts of the House, there is growing dissatisfaction with some rural broadband connectivity, its impact not just on consumers but on businesses, and the slow pace of improvement. It is clear that the Government ought perhaps to use their powers to ensure that those improvements happen, because it is a massive frustration for those communities and businesses—I see him nodding his head in agreement.

[Matt Hancock]

It is a serious frustration and we will use the powers.

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Helen Whately]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will the hon. Lady to let me answer the Minister’s intervention before I take another?

I am grateful to hear that from the Minister, and we will hold the Government to account to ensure that that intervention takes place. As he knows, we are all here to ensure that improvements happen, and if he has given a commitment from the Dispatch Box that he will use his ministerial position to ensure that the market is not a free-for-all and that the Government will ensure those improvements in rural areas, for rural businesses and consumers, the Opposition will support him.

[Helen Whately]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to one of the Back Benchers he mentions. Yes, many of us are campaigning on behalf of our constituents for better broadband, but on behalf of many of my constituents I appreciate that 20% of properties have been connected to superfast broadband thanks to the Government’s intervention. I expect up to 100% to be connected thanks to further Government intervention through the universal service obligation, as the Minister mentioned earlier. I look forward to being very grateful to the Government for all the work they are doing for my constituents.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because, of course, it was not just the Government who did that. I do not know whether she was a remainer or a leaver, but it would be remiss of the House, whatever our views on Brexit, not to acknowledge the involvement of the European Commission in funding some of the roll-out of this infrastructure and technology. It has come not just from the Government but from others, and we can see the European flag stickers on boxes, cabinets and infrastructure up and down the country.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am afraid that I have upset the hon. Gentleman by mentioning the word “Europe”.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that there is also a downside to EU involvement. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) struggled for a long time with EU state aid rules and the roll-out of broadband and, certainly for small businesses, had to come up with a slightly Heath Robinson-esque scheme of vouchers to get around the rules. If anything, they hampered roll-out rather than assisting.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am not saying that everything was perfect with that scheme, or with the European Community and European Union. I was merely pointing out in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) that it would be remiss of us to suggest that all the funding came from central Government when it came from a variety of sources, including the European Commission, to which all those stickers are a testament.

As I have said and as the Minister has acknowledged, our rural areas need a long-term investment strategy, not just short-term subsidy, helpful though that is. I look forward to holding the Minister to account while he is in this post to ensure that he makes good on his word. The short-term subsidy will help, but we need to ensure that investment continues apace beyond the five-year deadline of this business rate relief and we need continually to update our internet connections with the latest technology.

The Opposition’s focus is to encourage investment in all communities by excluding new investment in plant and machinery from future business rates valuation, which will free up medium and large businesses to invest in any area of the country. The country needs fresh ideas to meet the emerging challenges of the new century, yet what we have seen today, in a stripped-down Bill, is the lack of a comprehensive and compelling legislative framework that supports all businesses and local authorities on business rates.

I desperately plead for the co-operation the Prime Minister has asked for. I hope that it is genuine and heartfelt, and that she looks for ideas from the Opposition, which we are more than happy to provide to the Government—ideas to improve our infrastructure in cities and in rural areas, to update our connectivity, not just physically but through the cloud and other technologies, and to use emerging technologies to benefit British business, which will be crucial if we are to keep a competitive advantage in the uncertain years ahead. As we remove ourselves from the EU and strike a new set of trade deals across the world, we must keep that competitive edge. I agree with the Minister that new and emerging technology and infrastructure is part of the mechanism to drive Britain’s economy in the face of the new challenges that lie ahead.

We will not divide the House tonight. We will look to strengthen the Bill in Committee and we will continue to challenge the Government on their wider local government finance policy until we get the answers and certainty that local government so desperately needs. Technology and infrastructure are vital to building Britain’s capacity to grow and develop in a changing world in which we look to new and emerging markets. It is incumbent on whichever party is in government in future to work constructively with others to ensure that Britain’s infrastructure is kept as up-to-date and as state-of-the-art as possible.

In that respect, we cautiously welcome the Bill. We will seek to strengthen it in Committee, but let us work together on some measures for future local government finance because, as the local government Minister knows, local government needs that certainty.

14:30

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak under your chairmanship for the second time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer hon. Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I thought it might be narrowly-focused, but I have judged, from the interventions on the Minister, that this is clearly going to be yet another talk-fest about the quality of broadband in individual Members’ constituencies. That means I will have to stay for the whole debate to ensure that hon. Members are not too rude about me. I know that they are unswerving in their support of the Minister, but they always liked to have a go at me when I did his job.

It was quite good to hear the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), as he spent very little time actually talking about broadband, which shows how well the job has been done. He finessed his speech to talk widely about the important issue of business rates, but only mentioned broadband briefly. I understand why and respect his reasons because, under the stewardship of the Minister, we have of course seen the most successful rural broadband programme ever devised anywhere in the world. There was meant to be a cheer there. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I will give hon. Members their cue points as I go through my speech.

This incredibly successful programme has delivered superfast broadband to 4.5 million premises for a few hundred million pounds. Most of that money, if not all of it, will come back to the Government because the way in which the contracts were constructed means that the money starts to be paid back once take-up passes a certain threshold. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). She talked about the 20% of premises in her constituency that have superfast broadband. It is very important that we see our cup as half full. The Opposition Chief Whip spends his time thinking his cup is half full at the moment—[Interruption.] Oh, he is the Deputy Chief Whip; well, for me, he is really the Chief Whip. I digress. We hear from people who do not have broadband and are waiting for superfast broadband, and it is absolutely understandable that they are irritated. Those voices obviously grow louder as superfast broadband spreads, and as more people have access to this fantastic technology.

I got involved in the debate about business rates for broadband many years ago. In fact, when I was in opposition, I used to tease the then telecoms Minister, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I came up with an Opposition policy to reduce or eliminate business rates on telecoms infrastructure because every provider I went to told me that business rates were a big impediment to investment. I challenged the then Minister, asking him what on earth he was going to do about that, because the Valuation Office Agency was in charge of the business rates and it was the Minister’s job to take the agency by the scruff of the neck and sort the situation out. Of course, when I got into office, I realised that there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. The Valuation Office Agency is independent. It decides the level of business rates and it certainly sees off any Minister who tries to alter its independence or affect its judgment—quite right too.

The other row we had was about the fact that BT apparently gets a better deal on its business rates compared with some of the smaller providers. My understanding is that that is because of a long-standing court case brought by BT. BT also has much more infrastructure in the ground, so it is able to cut a wholesale deal with the Valuation Office Agency, but it is much more difficult for small providers that are getting under way. It is one of those unfortunate things. The point that I am trying to make, in my own rambling fashion, is that the impact of business rates on investment in broadband infrastructure is real. It is one of the factors that people take into account when they are trying to build infrastructure. The Bill is a very welcome measure to address that problem.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know if you have actually read the Bill, but it is the most boring and technical Bill that I have ever read. There are only six clauses. I saw six officials sitting in the Box and wondered whether each had been given a clause, because the chance of making it to the end of drafting even one clause is almost impossible. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends suffer from insomnia under the stress of doing this job. If so, I strongly recommend that they take the Bill home; they will be sound asleep by halfway through clause 1. However, I understand the thrust of the Bill, which aims to encourage new investment in broadband infrastructure by suspending the levying of business rates. That is the best way to do it, and the Government have calculated that something like £60 million of savings could be made.

I echo what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. I hope that all new infrastructure providers—people have mentioned companies such as Gigaclear and CityFibre—will take advantage of this. The Bill is aimed squarely at them to remove a financial barrier to further investment. The Government are trying to move to the next phase of broadband roll-out. The key task of the previous Parliament was to get workable broadband with speeds of about 24 megabits to as many people as possible. That has pretty much been completed. I understand that, under the universal service obligation, people in the last 5% of premises might get lower, but still workable, speeds. We are starting to build the future-proofed infrastructure to deliver fast and reliable broadband at speeds of above 30 megabits. Those are the kinds of broadband speeds that we will be able to dial up as more people make use of the technology. We all know—this does not need to be rehearsed—how much technology and data are now used, and the kind of bandwidth needed for the average home with two teenagers and parents watching 4K content, let alone for somewhere with business needs.

Planning is a much bigger impediment than business rates. A lot of people forget that. They think it is easy to build this infrastructure, but it is not at all. One comes across far too many cases of councils not being co-ordinated. There are cases of broadband providers having to go to five different council departments to get permission for way leaves, to dig up the highway and all the other permissions they need to build this infrastructure. We really need to get to grips with this in some shape or fashion.

In the spirit of co-operation that the Prime Minister announced this morning, let me suggest that the Labour Front Benchers talk to the Mayor of London. There must be an opportunity for him to set up a broadband taskforce to get all the London boroughs to co-ordinate their planning. I have heard of councils—it does not really matter what political colour they are—not granting way leaves to providers who wanted to provide broadband for social housing in London. I have heard of councils that did not want the green boxes on their pavements because they did not like the design. I have come across councils that refused to let broadband providers go ahead with future work, because they did not clear up after their previous work. Now, I understand councils’ irritation, but they are still holding things back. It is an incredibly dull point, but there must be an opportunity to co-ordinate the planning functions of the London boroughs, as well as of councils across the country.

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I disagree vigorously with my right hon. Friend by saying that it is not a boring point? It is actually very important that these companies clear up after themselves, because it causes reputational damage when they try to deliver superfast broadband and leave a mess behind. That does cause concern to residents, and it has caused concern in my constituency. He may say that it is a bit of a dull point, but it is important for companies to get things right so that they can be encouraged to do more in future.

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. In fact, although I welcome Virgin Media’s investment in cable in Didcot, the company has irritated quite a few of my constituents on the Ladygrove estate, so he is right that companies should clear up after themselves. I suppose I did not make myself entirely clear; my point was that, while councils should hold companies to account, their retribution should not be, “You can’t do any more work,” because they would be punishing constituents for companies’ past transgression.

Clearly, the Government want to encourage full fibre—fibre to the premises. It is true that we are falling behind some other countries. Spain, for example, is well advanced, but that is an historical advantage, because the infrastructure was put in 30 years ago, with extraordinary foresight. One also has to remember the topography of the built environment, because the more apartment blocks—as opposed to spread-out domestic homes—there are, the easier it is to deliver broadband quickly.

One should also not necessarily be seduced by statistics. Members might see, for example, that France is ahead of us in terms of fibre to the premises, but that fibre is in the same place as fibre to the cabinet, so very few people take it up, and a lot of people would say that it is wasted investment. The incremental approach taken in the UK so far—of getting universal coverage for superfast broadband and then moving on to fibre to the premises—is the right approach, because it keeps pace with customer demand. That is what has to happen.

The good news about fibre to the premises is that the cost of investment is coming down rapidly. TalkTalk has conducted trials in York, and what has happened is telling. The company has got the cost of connecting each home down to a few hundred pounds—£200, £300 or £400, I think. Also, people now talk about the impact on the community—about whether their house is in the green zone, which is where the fibre to the premises is, and people want to be there. Interestingly, customers do not actually care whether they can access 1 gigabit; what they get by having fibre to the premises is an absolutely 100% reliable service, whereas even those of us who have signed up to superfast broadband know that the service can drop out.

This is a very important and welcome Bill. I would simply ask the Minister when he sums up—I do not know whether it will be the Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital—to talk a little about whether the Government have considered how this relief impacts on mobile infrastructure. The roll-out of 4G in this country has been very successful, and we should not forget that it has all been done through private investment. When we rail against the mobile operators, we have to remember that they pay us—the taxpayers—by paying in to the Treasury coffers for spectrum, and they then build out their networks, effectively with their own capital. However, they come across the most bizarre planning issues all the time, and although the Minister talked about the electronic communications code, which will help to make mobile planning easier, we could perhaps hear about whether the Bill will apply to the fibre that goes from the masts back to the cabinets, or whether it could be amended so that mobile masts were free from whatever business rates these companies pay.

I would also like to hear how the Bill will encourage the roll-out of 5G, which will potentially transform everything. What we need are small cells dotted throughout the urban environment. The company Arqiva is already trialling a 5G network with its own spectrum. Again, we potentially need a rethink on planning to make it much easier for mobile companies to roll out these small cells. Given the dense coverage companies need, requiring them to get planning permission for these small cells will be a real hindrance to the fast roll-out of 5G.

As I made my remarks, I could tell that I had the full attention of the House. I noticed one or two yawns and a few slightly irritated looks as people thought, “When is this guy going to finish so that I can make my speech about our rotten broadband and get it in my brilliant local paper?” Well, the time is now, because I have finished.

18:35

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

On behalf of my Plaid Cymru colleagues, may I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election as a Deputy Speaker? We are looking forward to working with you and serving under your guidance for the duration of this Parliament.

I will keep my contribution short, because, to all intents and purposes from a Welsh perspective, this is an enabling Bill. We broadly welcome the provisions outlined in it, which provide powers for Welsh Ministers to award business rates relief to properties used to facilitate the transmission of broadband and mobile communications. This is at least one step in the right direction for my constituents, who have seen little digital dividend from the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on broadband and mobile signal to date.

I do, however, have some concerns about the UK Government’s strategy of incentivising only the most advanced technology. As I understand the Bill, the plan in England is to provide 100% business rate relief for technology that supports 5G and ultrafast broadband. As we heard in an earlier intervention, that has a budget of around £60 million, which equates to Barnett consequentials for Wales of around £3 million, and that will just go into the general Welsh Government pot. If I have one message for today’s debate, it is that it is vital that the Labour Welsh Government ring-fence that cash so that that money is not spent on pet projects.

Some 40% of my constituents are unable to access high-speed internet, and an even greater proportion are unable to get a 3G or 4G mobile phone signal in their homes. It is clear that we have a selective connectivity problem in Carmarthenshire. There is no doubt that that is holding back Carmarthenshire and the Welsh economy. We have no hope of making progress in developing our economy unless we can get to the bottom of the telecommunication infrastructure problems we face. If we were able to do so, I am confident that we would have a bright economic future in Carmarthenshire and in Wales, due to the incredible natural assets we have as a county and a country.

I am fortunate enough to have been born and raised in one of the most beautiful parts of the world, and I have no hesitation in saying that. We have a range of incredible leisure activities. One of the things that I think we will see in the modern workplace is that work and leisure time will become compressed, with people looking to set up their businesses where their leisure activities lie. Those who like horse riding, cycling, mountaineering, canoeing or surfing will find all those incredible leisure activities in abundance in Carmarthenshire, and I am confident that if we were able to deal with the basic telecommunication infrastructure problems we face, we would be able to put forward a very attractive economic package for investors and people looking to set up their businesses in our beautiful county.

While I urge the Welsh Government to use the powers and the Barnett consequentials awarded to them through the Bill to incentivise connectivity improvements in Wales, I call on Welsh Ministers to take an alternative approach to that put forward by the UK Government. It is vital that future investment, at a bare minimum, should enable rural Wales to reach a level playing field, before we start subsidising the most advanced technologies. The connectivity inequality in our nation needs to be eradicated, not entrenched, but I am afraid that we have seen the Government and providers concentrating investment over recent years on easy hits—on the large cities and the large towns in my country—while the more rural areas have been deliberately left behind.

The Welsh Government, via this Bill, must now use these powers and consequentials wisely. Rather than only incentivising the most advanced telecommunications technology, it is time that something drastic was done to incentivise the building of telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas such as the communities that I am very fortunate to serve in Carmarthenshire.

18:40

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I suppose I should apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) because the last time I was called to speak in a debate with no time limit, the subject was the local government finance settlement in 2016; I think that his scars have only just about healed. I was starting to take it a bit personally: every time I got called to speak, a new time limit was suddenly imposed, usually shorter than that which had gone before. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), has suggested that one is imposed pre-emptively on my getting up to speak, but I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will resist his cri de coeur.

I am not going to talk with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), because he speaks with great experience about these matters, but I want to make some points. First, I very much welcome this Bill, particularly the fact that it appears to be the result of a collaboration between three important Government Departments—the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Treasury. That sort of joined-up working of three Departments coming together to identify a problem and create a solution is to be welcomed, and it signposts a very-likely-successful governmental modus operandi for the five years of a Conservative Government that we have ahead of us.

I find myself almost reaching for the smelling salts and some form of remedial medication in agreeing with the Labour Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), although I would probably approach this in a slightly different way. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to help speed up and underscore the importance of the delivery of broadband. In relation to local government, particularly in small shire districts that are always seeking to be more efficient, I hope—indeed, I know—that my hon. Friend the DCLG Minister will be taking the reduction in the funding stream of non-domestic rates to a local authority into consideration as he evolves the new funding settlement for our local councils, which do so much good work to deliver these services. I thought that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made that point well, and I am sure it will have been heard on both sides of the House. The delivery of broadband and the delivery of those local council services are important, very often, to exactly the same constituents who need both.

I hope that this Bill and the proposed financial incentive, if that is the correct word, will act as a spur to existing providers to deliver on the notspots that are very prevalent, particularly, though not exclusively, in our rural areas, where the economic case for delivery is either non-existent or marginal, or where, as a result of further economic investigation, it has fallen outwith the confines and constraints of the initial contract usually agreed between a county council—in the case of Dorset, as with so many—and British Telecom.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage spoke with huge authority and experience, and I do not demur from anything that he said. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital talked about the evolving technologies that mean that this will not just be about wire, copper, fibre and so on, as fixed wireless and satellite are playing a part. This has been a long-running debate. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman)—he does not look to me, but I look to him—who has done so much to promote the delivery of rural broadband: so much, in fact, that he has been rewarded by being made a PPS in the Department, which means that he can no longer speak on the subject. This is clearly the route to promotion: talk with authority and knowledge on a subject and then get zipped up and silenced for many years to come. Perhaps that is why I got moved from DEFRA to the Home Office—I do not know.

This subject has knocked around in public and political debate and in the media for a long time, so it is worth while, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, pausing for a few moments to remind ourselves of the most enormous strides made in broadband provision for all our constituents and constituencies, urban and rural. Yesterday afternoon, I ordered something online—I am going to tease the House by not saying what the object was—to be delivered to my house tomorrow morning. The sketch writers, and indeed anybody else, may wish to run some sort of book on what it was. All I will say is that it is not something I would have guessed one could have ordered online even three or four years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) is looking even more perplexed than usual. I was struck by the huge change that this technology has made, and this Bill helps to underpin its delivery.

From a rural point of view—and what could be more rural than North Dorset?—it is worth re-amplifying the benefits that are derived from fast and superfast broadband and that will be further helped by the contents of this Bill. It was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who was right to point out, as I do, the huge unlocking of tourism potential in the promotion of hotel rooms, rooms in pubs, visitor attractions and the like, and in interactive tourist information centres in areas where local authorities may have withdrawn from face-to-face, over-the-counter visitor services. It will be absolutely crucial for the farmer in my constituency who is trying to buy or sell stock or make their submission to the Rural Payments Agency to have fast, reliable broadband of a speed and a regularity of service that no longer drops off just as they reach that crucial moment of hitting “send” or loading up that large map.

The issue is also crucial for small and medium-sized businesses. I am thinking of two in my constituency, both of which happen to be based in a small market town called Sturminster Newton: one is Crowdcomms and the other is Harts. Crowdcomms provides online and interactive platforms for large international conferences. It has offices based in Seattle, Sydney, and Sturminster Newton—it is there because the town has 4G.

Harts of Sturminster is one of those wonderful shops, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I know you will cherish and love as I do. It is the sort of shop that you walk into and do not say, “Do you sell?”, but merely ask, “Where can I find?”, because it sells absolutely everything, from powdered egg, to blackout curtains, to knicker elastic and sock gaiters—it is all there. You require none of those things, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage says that he now knows what I was ordering, but he would be wrong on all counts.

The shop makes its largest sales from its cookware department online. This is in a small market town that, until a few years ago, had as its main centre of industry the largest calf and livestock—particularly cattle—market in the whole of the south-west. Broadband is transforming local rural economies, creating good-quality, high-tech jobs. It also helps—we forget this at our peril—with the delivery of a whole raft of other things in rural social life, including for small villages that are geographically disconnected and not particularly well served by rural public transport.

We now have faster broadband service provision than has hitherto been the case, which helps with promoting charitable and fundraising events. I remember the frustration on my wife’s face as she tried to download posters for events she was organising for the St Gregory’s parents, teachers and friends association, but that has been transformed by the faster speed. Everybody in North Dorset now knows—as does everybody who reads the Official Report—that St Gregory’s summer sizzler event will take place in Marnhull this Friday. Everybody is invited. It is a huge fundraising event for our local school, the promotion of which is better enabled by broadband.

[Mr Vaizey]

I know more about my hon. Friend’s life now than I did five minutes ago. The entire House still wants him to reveal what he ordered online last week that he could not have ordered four years ago. That is a terrible omission from the tour of his domestic online arrangements.

[Simon Hoare]

I am going to tantalise the House still further by telling my right hon. Friend that it was inflatable and made of rubber. Before you rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will explain that it is a small, two-man dingy for my elder daughter and me to do a little bit of rowing and mackerel fishing during our summer holidays. Right hon. and hon. Friends may be pleased, disappointed, depressed or made despondent by that explanation.

[Wendy Morton]

I am reassured.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend says that she is relieved that it was something so entirely innocent and innocuous.

Fast broadband, which allows us to watch telly and order online, will of course help address rural isolation, which is particularly significant in an area such as mine. FaceTime and other mechanisms will help keep families together by keeping those intergenerational conversations going when geography means that a weekly visit may not always be appropriate, feasible or affordable.

Towns such as Sturminster are not unique. Glastonbury, which I think is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), has lost all of it banks—[Interruption.] I am sorry: Glastonbury is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey).

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions banks on the high street. Several branches in my constituency have shut and one of the arguments I hear is that people can use online banking, which is the very reason we need to ensure that we have excellent broadband facilities.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes my point far better than I could. She is absolutely right. The town of Sturminster has lost two banks in the past year and will lose its third bank at the end of this year. Private and business customers are told that internet banking is available. That is fine, so long as the speeds and the service are reliable enough to allow them to remember why they logged on and which financial transaction they wanted to undertake. That situation is not unique to my part of the world.

[Wendy Morton]

I did not use the word “relieved”; I said that I was reassured. Does my hon. Friend agree that rural areas such as Sturminster need a good broadband speed to enable people to access banking services that no longer exist on the high street? That will enable small businesses in particular, including those that are part of the gig economy, to operate in a business environment that does not leave them at a competitive disadvantage compared with those parts of the country that already have good broadband coverage.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Who among us has not visited an agricultural show or small business that cannot afford the necessary infrastructure for the interconnected pieces that allow people to pay by credit card or contactless? However, by plugging a whizzy device into an iPhone—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage know all about this, but it baffles me—my credit card can be charged for whatever service I have purchased, thereby helping small and medium-sized businesses. That also helps particularly, though not exclusively, those people who make and sell things from home and do not have commercial premises from which to trade.

The Bill is helpful for all those reasons. It will also help the next generation. Television and other advertisements always focus on getting faster film, the latest cartoon, watching sport and so on, all of which is welcome and laudable. There is also, however, potential for huge learning opportunities for our young people through the delivery of education in a 21st-century setting. That will, I hope, boost and bolster our productivity, and it can all be assisted by superfast and reliable broadband.

Over the past seven years, the Government have made the most enormous strides. We have occasionally beaten up our Ministers and others, saying “I’ve got this village or that hamlet that isn’t covered.” As I said at the start of my speech, this issue is not reserved solely to the rural setting; it is also an issue on the edge of Tech City here in London and elsewhere. However, if we pause and look at the data, we will see that, notwithstanding some of the problems we have had, we are striding ahead of many of our European friends, who are also our economic and commercial competitors, in providing access to broadband. We should not always beat ourselves up. At a time when we are all being fed the negative and “the anti”, this is something about which the Government should be duly proud, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage has said.

The Bill is a fundamental and very important next step. We hope and believe that it will assist better and faster delivery in our rural areas in North Dorset and across the county of Dorset. It has my full support. The Ministers promoting it have my admiration and encouragement, and I look forward to seeing it make speedy progress through this House.

18:57

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to follow my comrade and hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).

On my first day in this House, I was told by an older Member that if I wanted to keep something secret I should make a speech about it in the House of Commons. And so it was that on 13 September last year I gave a speech on the subject of this Bill and called for 100% rate relief of new fibre networks. I even went so far as to draft an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, not to give that rate relief but to require the valuation office to produce an annual report on the impact of the rating system on competition in the telecoms sector. Various players in the industry had presented me with the ridiculous conundrum that it was cheaper for them to rent fibre from BT than to pay the rates bill on putting in new fibre themselves. In their view, that entrenched the near monopoly of BT and gave it an enormous structural advantage, which was basically choking off competition.

I spoke on Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill, drafted an amendment and had a fruitful conversation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital, who is no longer in his place, who persuaded me that, given some of the other amendments I had tabled, I should leave my proposal to the Government to mull over for some months and that they would give it some serious thought. Imagine my pleasure and surprise, first when it appeared in last year’s autumn statement, and now, even more so, that it has appeared in this Bill. It will provide an enormous boost to competition in the sector. There is no doubt that the asymmetric deal on business rates between BT and new entrants is choking off new investment in large parts of the country. Smaller companies have very little incentive to compete directly with BT; they have to look for areas of the country that are currently unserved or un-commercial in order to try to make their networks pay. As a result, innovation is hard to come by.

BT has been helpful to me and my constituents, as I know it has been to several other Members, and I hope it will take the Bill in the spirit in which it is intended. Those of us who believe in a market economy think that competition is good. We think that it will be better not only for the consumer, but for BT, because it will drive the company to greater innovation, efficiency and, we hope, profit.

The Bill represents a welcome move towards seeing broadband and telecommunications as utilities. Over the past few months, steps have been taken in legislation towards that position. The building regulations have been changed to make the provision of broadband compulsory in new developments. Broadband will, I hope, be provided as a universal service over the next few years, and now non-domestic rates are being lifted on parts of the network. Broadband is increasingly being treated—as water, gas and electricity are—as a vital utility, which is what it is becoming. I am pleased about that development, and I hope that broadband will continue to be viewed increasingly as a utility.

In a constituency such as mine, broadband is incredibly important for a successful, vibrant countryside. If the countryside is to compete with its urban neighbours, it needs to be connected to the world. These days, that social and economic connection takes the form not of roads, dual carriageways or motorways, but of superfast broadband. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), is peppered with enterprises that do most of their business online. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that on Saturday I attended the Amport fête and came across a brand new and very pleasing business called Test Valley Gin, a new brand of gin that is taking the market by storm. Kate Griffin, the inventor of this gin, is having some success. The 36 bottles she produces each week are selling like hot cakes, many of them online on a website called theginstall.co.uk.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My ears pricked up when the hon. Gentleman mentioned gin. Perhaps, in the interests of cross-party co-operation, he could share some around?

[Kit Malthouse]

I have to confess that I was so taken with the small sample that I tried—I was driving—that I bought a bottle. Perhaps I will bring one in. I did wonder whether the House of Commons authorities might start serving Test Valley Gin in the bars. It is an excellent drink, infused with a secret recipe of local herbs and spices, and I can recommend it.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I had the great pleasure of being in my hon. Friend’s constituency yesterday, although I beg his forgiveness for not seeking his permission. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I went purely for a cricket match, and I did not think that I was obligated to seek his permission to play cricket in his wonderful constituency. He is making an important point. Broadband is increasingly important in all our constituencies, and I believe it is as important as road and rail. It is a part of our infrastructure that our constituents just cannot do without.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is very welcome to visit my constituency at any time. In fact, I am surprised that he has only been once recently, and he should come more often. My door is always open.

Ensuring that villages are connected to the world is becoming vital to maintaining rural life. Rural residents find it increasingly ridiculous that they can see broadcast-quality footage of Tim Peake in the international space station but they cannot go online and post complimentary comments on my Facebook page, as my constituents increasingly seem to do.

[Simon Hoare]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that his constituents might wish to do the former more often than the latter.

[Kit Malthouse]

I think that is rather churlish of my hon. Friend, given how complimentary I have been about him. I hope that one day I will reach the level of popularity and name recognition in my constituency that Commander Peake has reached in the world.

Small business is becoming increasingly important in rural areas. Some 25% of small businesses—nearly half a million—are located in rural areas, where they provide lots of employment and create wealth. The Bill points to a wider issue with which the House will have to grapple over the next few years—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned it—and that is the appropriateness of the business rate system. We are applying a tax first devised in 1572 to a 21st-century economy, much of which exists somewhere in the cloud. The Bill acknowledges at its core the disproportionate impact of business rates on competition in this sector. Those of us who have rural constituencies—indeed, anybody whose constituency contains a high street—understand the disproportionality of business rates for retail businesses, particularly now that more and more people buy things online, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said. If we are to keep our high streets vibrant, keep our businesses working and maintain the competitiveness of the rural economy against the huge businesses that these days operate from nowhere, I question whether taxing property—frankly, taxing investment and expansion—remains an appropriate way to gather the revenue that we need.

There will come a point, over the next couple of decades, when we have to consider shifting taxation on corporations away from property and profit, and towards turnover. If we taxed the turnover of the large multinationals —the Googles and the Amazons—we would collect more from them than we currently do, but in a fair way. Small shops on the high streets in North West Hampshire compete with corporations that transact in this country, dispatch goods from a second country and book the profits in a third country. We have to think about the asymmetric nature of the taxation of those organisations if we want to create a level playing field for competition.

I welcome the Bill. I welcome the move towards the designation of broadband as a utility and the recognition of the distortive effect of business rates on commerce. I hope that over the next five years or so, many companies will take advantage of the rate relief window. I suspect that at the end of that period it will be somehow extended, and I hope that any such extension will become permanent. I hope that businesses will take advantage of the window and come to North West Hampshire to plaster my entire constituency with broadband fibre, to the cabinet and to the premises, with my pleasure and approval.

19:07

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Like several Members here, I have the pleasure of representing a beautiful and very rural constituency. In fact, 42% of my constituency is part of an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is a lovely constituency in which to walk, have picnics and spend time. It is fabulous for farming, but less good for connectivity.

Over the two-and-a-bit years for which I have been the Member of Parliament for Faversham and Mid Kent, I have received letters—and occasionally emails, if people have managed to get online—from constituents in many villages including Headcorn, Kingswood, Doddington, Eastling, Selling and Sheldwich. Those are all lovely villages, but they struggle with connectivity, and residents have had difficulty getting fast broadband.

In several of those villages, it can be difficult even to get a mobile phone signal. A couple of months ago, during the general election campaign, I was in Headcorn, and I thought I might tweet a picture from Headcorn station. Not only did I not have 4G on my mobile phone, but I did not have any mobile phone signal at all. I could not even make an old-fashioned mobile telephone call or send a text message. There are parts of my constituency, such as that patch of Headcorn, where unless people happen to be with the one operator serving it a little, it is impossible even to make a mobile phone call.

My constituency wants to have better broadband and better mobile phone connections, and that is why I welcome the commitment this Government have been and are making to connectivity across this country. As I mentioned in an intervention, thanks to the Government’s programme of rolling out high-speed broadband, 8,432 properties have now got a high-speed broadband connection that would not have had one without the programme. By September 2018, I am expecting about 2,000 more properties to be on high-speed broadband thanks to the programme. That amounts to 25% of the properties in my constituency being connected thanks to this Government’s work and commitment to high-speed broadband, and it will get Faversham and Mid Kent up to about 90% of properties being on high-speed broadband.

We are still some way off the 100% level that I would like, so I very much welcome the universal service obligation that is coming into force. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) in campaigning very hard to put that into law. I also welcome the commitment made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Minister from the Dispatch Box that the financial cap will be high enough to make sure that 100% of properties in constituencies such as mine receive access to broadband of at least 10 megabits per second. That is not the high speed that we hope will be delivered by the Bill, but for those who have no or incredibly slow broadband at the moment, 10 megabits per second will make a great difference.

All of us who represent rural constituencies know the difference between the haves and the have-nots on broadband, but having high-speed broadband is genuinely life changing. It enables us to do things that we now consider everyday functions of life, and whether it is sending emails, booking tickets or flights online, choosing hotels or B&Bs, comparing offers on travel insurance or car insurance, or shopping for groceries, there is so much that those of us with high-speed broadband take for granted. However, in my constituency, some people still do not even have such access.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend not add watching BBC Parliament so that all her constituents in Faversham and Mid Kent can see her excellent speech?

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend very much, although I doubt whether even one of my constituents is watching my speech. I will not hold my breath while waiting for confirmation.

We know that children, including mine, often get set homework tasks requiring them to look up things on the internet. If a child lives in a rural village or at the end of a track and they cannot get online, they are disadvantaged. There is also the very basic thing of staying in touch with distant relatives, who often live all around the world. I remember when I was a child that the cost of making an international call was enormous. During my gap year as an 18-year-old, I made two phone calls to my parents in nine months, because it cost such a huge amount to phone home, but people can now make video calls basically for nothing so families around the world can stay in touch. As older people go online—many people in their 70s, 80s and 90s are very active internet users—I hope that the internet will be one way in which we can tackle the challenge of loneliness. For someone to make a FaceTime call to their grandma or grandpa is a great way for them to keep in touch, and that is often much easier if it is very difficult to go to see them.

There is also the question of the use of the internet for work, where it can make a huge difference for rural areas, as it does for the economy in general. It enables people to work from home—I have two caseworkers who do most of their work supporting me and my constituents from home, which enables them to juggle that work and their family commitments—and I know that a huge number of people in my constituency now run businesses from home, including many quite significant rural businesses. There is a fabulous business called Bombus around the corner from where I live just outside Faversham, which makes amazing products out of maps. If any hon. Members want interesting products based on maps of their constituencies, I recommend that they contact Bombus to get all sorts of books, paper goods and lampshades. On the other side of my constituency, near Maidstone, a business enabling people to compare utility prices has about 100 employees in a really rural spot. There is no way in which that business could exist without good broadband, so it is very important for the rural economy.

We have got to this point very quickly. About 12 years ago I worked at AOL Time Warner launching digital products, such as the UK’s first video on-demand service for downloading films. Back then, just over 10 years ago, people had to plan ahead: if they wanted to watch a film, they had to start downloading it and then go away, perhaps to cook something for supper, and come back a couple of hours later when enough of it had downloaded to enable them to watch it, if they were lucky, although it may well have stopped downloading halfway through. We probably launched the product a little ahead of what the technology could do. Now, however, my children sit down in front of the television on a Sunday morning, when I am trying to catch up on some sleep, turn on the iPlayer and watch something immediately, with none of that delay. That change has turned watching television into a completely different experience.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to this area, but I very much ask them to press on with making sure that we get high-speed broadband to 100% of properties across constituencies such as mine. I also ask them to make sure that the new technologies enabled by the Bill such as 5G and full-fibre broadband—I will now turn to the Bill— benefit those not only in more urban areas of the country, but in rural areas. I would ask that as far as possible that should not be a simple sequential process, with the people of Headcorn being able, if they are lucky, to make a phone call and then getting 3G, 4G and eventually 5G sometime in the distant future. I am very keen for some leapfrogging so that those in more rural areas can catch up thanks to new forms of technology.

It is particularly important for the Bill to go ahead, with investment in these new technologies, in the challenging economic climate and the challenging economic times in which we live. I am very mindful of the ageing population in this country. We have talked a lot during the past couple of weeks about the cost of the public sector and the desire to increase the pay of people working in the public sector. We know that as a country we face a productivity challenge in that we are not nearly as productive as we need to be for people to have a good or a better standard of living, and we face global competition. I am pretty realistic in saying that—unfortunately, unlike the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who wishes to raise business rates and thinks, erroneously, that that will increase revenue to spend on public services—history tells us that, as we very well know, increasing business rates results in a fall in revenue.

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Helen Whately]

As the hon. Gentleman gave way to me, I will give way to him.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I merely wish to correct the record: at no stage have either I or the Labour party said that we want to increase business rates. We want a small increase in corporation tax, which would still result in our having one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the world.

[Helen Whately]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s putting the record straight, because I made an error in my notes. Instead of business rates, I meant to say corporation tax. We disagreed about this point earlier. My point about corporation tax stands. Unfortunately, raising corporation tax results in a reduction in revenue for the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed out.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Was she as shocked as I was to hear the shadow Secretary of State refer to a “small” increase in corporation tax, because the rate Labour would move it to would be almost a 50% increase on the 17% rate that we will have?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This point really is significant because as corporation tax rates come down below 20%, businesses behave differently. Businesses are more likely to locate in this country, to invest in their businesses in this country and to create jobs, which is what my constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish want. That also generates the revenue that is paid in taxes to fund public services.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the subject of large increases, given that the hon. Lady would be outraged by a 50% increase, she must be absolutely distraught at the business rates revaluation, which has seen some business rates go up by 200%.

[Helen Whately]

In some respects, the hon. Gentleman and I may agree, although not on the specifics of his point. As other hon. Members have said, the business rates system does need a further look. For instance, I am unhappy with the way business rates tend to penalise high street shops in some of my smaller towns. The largest employer in my constituency is a brewer, and pubs have struggled with some of the increases in business rates. However, I recognise the efforts that the Chancellor made following lobbying by me and other Members of Parliament to help pubs with the changes to business rates. There is no question but that there is further work to be done on business rates, and that has been acknowledged by the Government.

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I take my hon. Friend back to corporation tax? She is absolutely right that the reduction in the rate has seen an increase in tax take. Surely the important thing is to look not at the tax rate, but at the tax take—how much tax is actually raised. The final point she made about jobs is crucial. We see record levels of employment across all our constituencies, which is to be welcomed. That has happened because businesses want to expand and take on more people.

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will return to the content of the Bill in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am spending a little time on corporation tax because the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spent some time talking about it. It is important that Government Members make it clear that we are absolutely committed to raising revenue for public services. The last thing we want to see is tax changes that gain the right headlines but have the wrong effect on the bottom line from the Government’s point of view. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we can raise revenue for public services, about which we care very much, but we recognise that, to do so, we must have a tax environment that is supportive to businesses, because they are what provides the jobs and the economic growth.

On economic growth and people working harder to keep up their standard of living, as an economy, we need to be more productive and technology is the crucial enabler in that. That is exactly what the Bill will support. For instance, 5G as a technology is and will be a great enabler of the internet of things. Every second around the world, 127 devices are newly connected to the internet. That rate will surely increase, so the demand for connectivity and the ability to carry large volumes of data will only go up.

It is vital that we are at the forefront of that. In fact, 5G is forecast to boost economic value by $4 trillion to $11 trillion globally by 2020. That is a huge increase in economic value, so it is vital that we as a country take our share of that economic growth. In practice, it will mean developments that allow us to have smart household appliances, driverless cars and, one day, driverless lorries, which for my constituents, who are very unhappy about lorries being parked up in laybys a lot, will be an interesting prospect.

[Amanda Milling]

My hon. Friend and I both have residents and businesses that face the plight of HGV fly-parking. I know that she, too, is very passionate about this. Does she agree that, as technology advances, we should look at different ways of doing business?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) will find an ingenious way of relating the intervention by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) precisely to the Bill. I can see a way of doing it and I am sure she will succeed.

[Helen Whately]

I could see the frown on your face, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might seem like a stretch to go from talking about telecommunications to lorry fly-parking, but as 5G is an enabler of the internet of things and, potentially, of driverless cars and driverless lorries, it might mean that lorry drivers no longer have to take long breaks to sleep. The reason lorries are parked in the laybys of our roads is that the drivers are sleeping because they have to have a compulsory rest before they can keep driving, but we could have lorries without a driver, so the subjects genuinely connect.

To return to what I was planning to talk about, another important potential application of 5G is in healthcare, with wearable devices. For instance, people’s heart rate and blood pressure could be tracked. That is very much part of the future of healthcare and preventive healthcare to help us all to look after ourselves. As somebody who is very committed to the NHS and to making sure we have a sustainable NHS and a healthier population, I am keen that we enable such developments in healthcare.

Those are just a handful of examples of what we hope 5G will enable. We hope to be at the forefront of this technology by investing in it.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time, but before she moves away from 5G, I invite her to reflect on this point. It is important not to leave behind those communities that are yet to clock on to 3G and 4G. I am sure that, in her constituency, as in mine, there are areas where people simply cannot access 3G or 4G. Although 5G is to be welcomed, will she join me in calling on the Government to ensure that those areas are not left behind?

[Helen Whately]

I completely agree. As in his constituency, there are parts of my constituency that do not have 4G, 3G or even enough mobile signal to make a phone call. I am very keen for the Government to intervene to ensure that there is comprehensive mobile phone reception across rural areas. I also hope that we can have a catch-up for those areas, so that they can canter quickly through 3G and 4G and then go straight to 5G.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

While we are on the subject of notspots and blackout areas, does my hon. Friend agree that there are priority areas such as along railway lines? Many of my constituents commute every day and it is so frustrating not even being able to get a phone signal on the railway line. The Bill will enable extra infrastructure, so that we have connected commuters, which is key in the 21st century.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the Bill’s focus on the infrastructure along routes such as rail lines and motorways, where it will be of particular benefit. My constituency, like hers, contains commuters who would like to be able to do more work on the train, and the Bill will make that possible.

Full-fibre broadband should bring an end to a problem about which I often hear from BT engineers: the challenge of the “last mile”, the old copper wires that are so dated, some of them more than 100 years old. Although that technology has served us very well for many years, it is probably time to move on, so that people can get proper high-speed broadband, especially those who live further away from the cabinet and the traditional infrastructure.

It is right for the Government to support the development of new infrastructure by providing incentives in the form of appropriate conditions for substantial private investment in that infrastructure, which will multiply by many times the investment that they are making with the use of taxpayer funds. The combination of the £400 million digital infrastructure fund and the £60 million business rates relief for which the Bill provides should be wearable for the Government, while also resulting in much more investment in the country’s digital infrastructure, which we badly need.

I want to ensure that we reach out to and communicate with younger voters. I say to them, “You may not be watching the Parliament channel on your internet connection, but take note of what is being said.” This is an example of the Government’s looking ahead to the sort of economy that we need for the future: looking towards investing in the infrastructure that we need, so that we will be able to compete globally, have a modern economy, have innovation and have the kind of jobs and the kind of economy that will give younger workers opportunities for decades to come, and give us the economic growth that we need in order to fund a high standard of living and the public services about which we care so much.

19:32

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), although he is no longer in the Chamber—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—for being so kind about the work that I have done on broadband. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said that I would not speak in the debate, I was going to leap to my feet like some sort of digital gazelle, but I thought I would keep the House waiting. We have heard several extensive speeches about the many benefits of Government investment in digital infrastructure, but my speech will be somewhat briefer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said that some of her constituents were not able to do something as old-fashioned as making a mobile telephone call. Mobile telephone calls are, in our modern world, pretty old-fashioned, but we should not forget that not many years ago they were simply impossible in this place. Since then, we have not only been through the period of the invention of mobile phones; we have been through a period during which all our constituents railed against the installation of mobile phone masts. Now we have come full circle, and they rail against the absence of mobile phone masts. The digital revolution has thoroughly revolved.

I want to make some brief points about the Bill. It seems obvious to me that, although adopting this approach to encouraging digital infrastructure investment means that the Government are forgoing a certain amount of revenue from business rates, their fostering of digital innovation and infrastructure investment will ensure that the amount they get back through the broader benefits of economic growth is many times greater than the amount that the business rates themselves cost the state and the taxpayer. That strikes me as a definition of the way in which the Government should be using public money, pump-priming economic growth to allow the development of an economy that works in the digital way that, as we have heard, our children will expect, and that all modern businesses already expect.

I commend the Government for taking that approach. It is also commendable that, by giving the relief a five-year term—which my right hon. Friend the Minister hinted could even be extended—they are giving firms an incentive to invest in installing fibre now, even if they do not turn it on, so to speak, for a number of years. I hope that we will secure the economies of scale of broader investment while continuing to benefit from business rate relief on that investment. That can only be a good thing, and it also addresses some of the concerns raised by the industry before the introduction of the Bill.

We should bear in mind that the growth in demand for fibre will only increase. When I was a journalist writing about the launch of the iPlayer—the BBC cunningly launched it in Christmas Day, because it knew that demand would be rather more limited—the BBC did not think for one moment that it would itself be broadcasting in 4K come 2016-17. Still less did it think that we would, as a matter of course, live in households in which half a dozen people wanted to download the 4K streams that broadcasters now routinely provide.

It is no small irony that, by all accounts, when Bazalgette built the London sewers he offered quadruple the capacity that was required in Victorian London. Now we see that that quadruple capacity has been more than exhausted by a growing population, and we should take the same approach when it comes to investing in our digital infrastructure. To point out that a prominent Bazalgette is still involved in the life of our digital nation is not in any way to draw a comparison between sewage and the modern digital output with which he is concerned. The huge benefits provided by the man who brought us “Big Brother” and a host of other programmes are not to be described in that way in the slightest degree. All we can say is that this is clearly a family that has contributed a huge amount to the life of our nation, at every level of our infrastructure.

In this day and age, there is never an excuse for underestimating the amount of digital capacity that we will require. Although 4K may appear to be perfectly adequate for our purposes today, we will look back on it in a number of years and see that it is paltry in comparison with what we will be using on a routine basis, whether that involves virtual reality, driverless cars, or all the technologies that will eradicate the digital scourge of fly-parking mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling).

We should not only encourage the Government to proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible, but encourage any Government to ensure that this sort of rate relief applies to investment in digital infrastructure, whether mobile or fixed, thus ensuring—following the launch of the iPlayer not so very long ago—that the internet of things that is now coming upon us will be fully served. That will be thanks to the investment of Governments such as this.

19:39

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is a real expert in this field, as he has demonstrated tonight. I have to admit that I am a technology dinosaur; when it comes to communications, if I have a choice between email, text or telephone, I will choose an actual conversation every single time. It takes an awful lot less time to pick up the phone and have a conversation one to one than to compose lengthy emails that often can take hours to construct by virtue of the need to check the content and tone, or to correspond via text messages; at present I have about eight text messages building up, and I will no doubt forget to respond to all of them.

I welcome this Bill, which provides business rate relief for new fibre infrastructure. Its measures form part of a wider package that rightly encourages investment in our country’s digital infrastructure and that helps ensure that Britain remains a digital world leader. The Bill will help homes and businesses across the country have faster, more affordable and more reliable broadband connectivity.

We have heard this evening from many Members who represent constituencies very different from mine. Many of their areas are very rural, and we have heard from them about issues of the connectivity of mobile and broadband in rural areas. My constituency is not like that: I have mainly towns and one large village—Cannock, Hednesford, Rugeley and Norton Canes. There is limited rural space in my constituency; my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is one of my near-neighbours, and I see her nodding, as she recognises what my constituency is like.

I also have a forest in my constituency. If someone is driving through the forest of Cannock Chase and I, as a passenger, am having a phone conversation, the chances are that the phone call will cut off; I must add that I am on wireless, not Bluetooth. This is an issue in the more rural parts of my constituency. The measures in the Bill that make broadband and mobile access much better will be welcomed by people and businesses across the country, including in my constituency.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although her constituency, like mine, is not predominantly rural, we can still find notspots—not just in forests and so forth, but in the more built-up areas?

[Amanda Milling]

My hon. Friend is right, and I will come on to some specific issues later in my speech.

My office is on Market Street in the heart of Hednesford, yet when I am there, more often than not I cannot make telephone calls because I do not have any mobile phone reception. When I am travelling between my office and my home as well, invariably the mobile phone reception falls.

Why is broadband and mobile access so important? As Members have said, it is key to family and our daily lives. We can keep in contact with our friends across the world through Facebook and social media. We have talked about the closure of high street bank branches across the country because people are increasingly doing their banking online, but they need excellent online access to be able to do that. I am not sure that any Members have mentioned being able to switch energy suppliers. We talk about people trying to get better rates for their gas and electricity, and that is often best done by looking at online portals. If people do not have good internet access, the range of deals they can get is restricted.

We have talked about watching television, too. Personally, I just switch the TV on; that goes back to my being a bit of a dinosaur. Many people, however, use iPlayer and on-demand services. My mother, for instance, has never used a computer, but a few years ago we got her iPlayer and she is absolutely reliant on it for communicating with people and watching television, but she has to have excellent broadband access to do that.

I want to raise some specific issues in terms of broadband access and the roll-out of full fibre connectivity. A number of my constituents live on a new housing development called Chasewater Grange, and they complain of painfully slow broadband speeds. It is a new Taylor Wimpey development on the edge of Norton Canes. There are about 130 houses. Despite being billed as a superb collection of high-quality homes, with a mix of house types to suite a range of tastes, including three and four-bedroom homes, all with easy access to local amenities—which I fully support; they are fantastic, and it is a fantastic development—the one thing the local residents do not enjoy is fast and reliable broadband access.

On building a new housing scheme, developers install gas, electricity and water as a matter of course, but we are now in a time when broadband is the fourth utility. The provision of superfast broadband should be treated in the same way as the other utilities. The problem is not unique to Chasewater Grange. I have done quite a lot of research on this issue over previous days, and I have been reading endless reports of residents of new developments up and down the country facing similar issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) is not in his place at present, but he made the point that this problem has been recognised, and last year an agreement was reached between the Government, Openreach and the Home Builders Federation to ensure that superfast and ultrafast broadband connectivity would be either provided free or co-funded by Openreach to new developments. This has been extended to all developments with more than 30 homes, and connection will be free. We rightly place emphasis on building new homes; we often talk about the issue in the Chamber. So I am pleased that there is recognition that broadband connectivity is as important as the other utilities. Homebuyers expect this.

The issue is particularly important in my constituency, because thousands of new homes are being built all the time. When I drive around the constituency, I never cease to be amazed by the number of new developments. In the Pye Green valley and in Brereton, where I live, homes are being built all the time, and we must make sure they have access to both the main utilities and also broadband.

The moves made by Openreach and the Home Builders Federation are good news, but they are not going to resolve the issues faced by the residents of Chasewater Grange. I was very pleased to learn last week that that community has made some progress in securing funding from both Openreach and Taylor Wimpey to complete the work to install the fibre-based broadband. However, the residents of Chasewater Grange still face a funding shortfall, and they are communicating at present with Superfast Staffordshire. I hope they succeed in securing some assistance to be able to bridge the gap and ensure that this fibre broadband is connected.

I hope that as a result the residents of Chasewater Grange will soon be able to enjoy the benefits of fast and reliable broadband, and be able to do their banking online, and that the teenagers will be able to do their homework online—I am sure that we would all agree that it is important that they can complete their assignments. I also hope that those residents who want to work from home will be able to do so. The issues relating to broadband speeds are not confined to Chasewater Grange. I know of homes on Sweetbriar Way, for example, that have been waiting years for this connectivity. I also have a small number of rural properties in my constituency, and they are still waiting, too.

I want to turn to a more positive aspect of fast broadband access. The redevelopment of the Rugeley B power station site will present opportunities to tap into existing superfast broadband infrastructure. The power station sits right alongside the west coast main line, which has the superfast broadband network running up the line. Similarly, the canal network in the area has that infrastructure. The power station site benefits from the railway line and the canals; it also has national grid infrastructure. I have described it before in the House as a connectivity crossover, and we need to make the most of it. It presents an ideal opportunity to attract high-tech businesses and advanced manufacturing that can make the most of the infrastructure.

The power station site is huge, and there will also be some homes on it. I have talked about the need to bring broadband infrastructure to the door in new housing developments. The superfast broadband line is very close to this development, and we need to make the most of it—not only for today but for future generations. There is a real opportunity to ensure that the regeneration of this power station site attracts the businesses that will create highly skilled, highly paid jobs for those future generations. As I have said before—and will probably say again to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones)—we need to have ambitious, bold and visionary plans for Rugeley.

There is another site in my constituency that has excellent digital infrastructure, and again, we need to make the most of it. It is the Cannock campus of the South Staffordshire College. It was very disappointing to hear recently that it is to shut owing to falling numbers, because it had received a multi-million pound investment a few years ago, part of which provided it with excellent digital infrastructure. We need to make the most of this site as we look at plans for its future. We need to tap into that digital infrastructure.

I am sure that many other Members want to speak in this important debate, but I want to come back to the Bill that we are discussing tonight. It is part of a wide range of reforms that the Government are undertaking to ensure that we have excellent digital infrastructure across our country. I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that it will enable my constituency and others to have faster, more reliable broadband and to enjoy all the benefits that the internet and emails offer us.

19:54

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling). It is also a pleasure to take part in the debate. Before I get into the detail of my speech, I should like to thank the Minister for Digital, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who is no longer in his place, for giving me a comprehensive response to what I thought was a simple, straightforward intervention earlier. I asked him about the five-year limit and the deadline for the business rate relief, which was an important point. If the Bill can incentivise companies to really get behind investment in our digital infrastructure, that will be a good thing. It will have far-reaching benefits.

The Bill made me think of a couple of things. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase described herself as a “technology dinosaur”, but I would describe myself as a technophobe. The challenges with the internet connection that we have faced here in Parliament in recent weeks have been frustrating, to say the least. All I will say is that it is very handy to have a staff member on your team who is a good bit younger than you are. I have found that they know everything about the internet, and they have been a huge help to me.

I am also reminded of the time, probably 20 to 25 years ago, when we first started to see the internet appear—I use the word “appear” because that is how it felt—and we had our first internet connection. It was a big thing to have the internet at home. I seem to recall that there was no such thing as wireless internet. There was a wire that led from downstairs to upstairs, and we had to plug it in and unplug it. It was impossible for more than one person at a time to be on a computer. How things have changed!

I am also reminded of the first mobile phone that we had. I could not fit it into my quite large handbag. It was almost the size of a brick, and I used to walk around with it. It had an aerial and a handset with a curly cable attached. Again, how things have progressed! Who would have imagined that we would be here this evening talking about 5G—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Perhaps my nostalgia is greater than the hon. Lady’s, because I believe that my Nokia “brick” was far more reliable than my Apple iPhone has ever been.

[Wendy Morton]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s judgment on that one. Sadly, I did not have much chance to use the “brick”; I seem to my recall that my husband used it more than I did. However, I do have my own iPhone these days, so things have changed. Today, we can stream films into our homes and download music. I have something that I call the boogie box. I can have it in the kitchen or move it around the house, and it picks up the music from my iPhone. It is just amazing what we can do and how technology has changed our lives. It has also changed business and so many other things.

The Bill is relatively short, but it is very important. It gives effect to one of the commitments on digital communications that were made in last year’s autumn statement. It is also important because it aims to give targeted support to the roll-out of full-fibre broadband connections and 5G mobile communications. Often, when we talk about infrastructure in this place, we are talking about roads, railways or bridges. We are talking about very visible and tangible pieces of infrastructure. That infrastructure obviously matters to the local area, as well as regionally or nationally, but occasionally something that seems small can have a much more far-reaching impact.

This Bill is about a piece of infrastructure that is far less visible. We see the green broadband boxes as we drive round our constituencies, but we cannot see the full-fibre broadband. We will know it is there, however, because we will be able to access it. Although the technology is not visible, the Bill will enable full-fibre broadband to reach across England and Wales to the benefit of residents and businesses across the country and across my constituency.

Many hon. Members have given examples this evening of where broadband makes a difference in their constituencies—an individual household, a small retail business, a large manufacturer in a business park or someone working in the gig economy. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the local economy in my constituency. Whether in the shops of Aldridge village centre or in one of our many and varied business parks, businesses are creating jobs, driving the investment that is reducing unemployment, and developing skills for today and for the future. Such businesses may use the internet to sell their goods, to order components or materials, or to run their customer service. The internet is now an integral part of business.

[Amanda Milling]

Access to the internet is as important as electricity. If the lights go out and the power goes off, a manufacturing business will not be able to produce its goods. In the same way, if a business is reliant on the internet, it can grind to a halt without it.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before entering this place, I worked in the optical industry, and our business relied on the internet day in, day out for processing orders and for sending stock back to Europe. The minute the internet went down we could do nothing at all, which shows how crucial connectivity is.

The Bill is vital, because under current broadband, superfast broadband and mobile coverage we still get some so-called notspots. We have rightly heard many contributions from hon. Members representing rural constituencies. My constituency does not fall into that category, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that rural constituencies are not the only ones that are affected. We have notspots in my constituency, and I even find that I have to move around in my own home from time to time to get a mobile connection. Were it not for the wi-fi connection, I would struggle on many a day. I hope that the days of having to lean out of the kitchen window or move to a certain spot in the living room to get some mobile signal will soon be a thing of the past.

We have heard a lot about businesses and individuals tonight, but this Bill is not just about them. I am thinking of my constituency’s many voluntary organisations and charities, many of which provide lifelines to local residents. They too rely on having a good internet connection. Through their webpages, they allow people to get information 24 hours a day. Through the internet, we are able to reach much further than we could in the past.

I want to follow up on something said by some other hon. Members about demographics and age. Access to the internet has the potential to cut across all parts of society. If an older person has good internet access, they can keep in touch with their family through Facebook or FaceTime—things that we did not have a few years ago. If someone has grandchildren living on the other side of the country, or even on the other side of town, and wants to connect with them on a more frequent basis much more cheaply than by using the telephone, that can be facilitated through a good internet connection.

When I go into a school, as all hon. Members do, and have a debate either with primary school children or, more often than not, older secondary school children, the very valid question, “What do the Government do for us as young people?” often comes up. Sitting here today has made me realise that this Bill is an example of something that the Government are doing that will help young people. The younger generation are probably more tech and phone-savvy than all of us here put together—I can certainly speak for myself on that.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will agree that the age disparity between young and old can be bridged through the internet and through proper broadband and mobile connections, particularly in rural constituencies and especially those in Scotland. Although some powers have been devolved—unfortunately no SNP Members are here tonight to speak on such an important issue—I hope that my hon. Friend and the Minister will recognise the important role that Westminster can play in all the nations of the UK by giving funding and offering direction for broadband and mobile.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This Bill is for England and Wales, not for Scotland. That is the problem, so we need to deal with England and Wales and not drift too far.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) for making that valuable point. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong, but although this Bill relates to England and Wales only, Barnett formula consequentials will apply, so my new hon. Friend from Scotland made a valid point.

The Bill is about looking to the future. It is about developing infrastructure, so that we can take our country forwards. As we seek to develop new relationships and partnerships in a post-Brexit world, the Bill will make connectivity around the world so much easier and better.

Turning briefly to business rates, the Bill will enable 100% business rates relief for new full-fibre infrastructure for a period of five years. I hope that that will provide an incentive and encourage the telecommunications industry to get on with the job of delivering what we in this House want to see. Together with the universal service obligation, I hope that rates relief will make a significant difference to our constituents. I hope that we will make a big contribution towards closing the digital divide that we have heard so much about and that we will get higher-quality, more reliable connectivity in households and businesses. That is what I want in my constituency and what other Members want for theirs. In closing, I am supporting a Government who are investing in our country, in our infrastructure and in the livelihoods and futures of not just today’s generation but tomorrow’s as well, so I will support the Bill this evening.

20:09

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who addressed the substance of this important Bill with her customary attention to detail and her personal reflections on the progress that the internet has made. The change it has made to all our lives has been enormously valuable.

I will address the core of the Bill first, before explaining why it is so important. It is excellent that the Bill will provide for 100% business rates relief for full fibre infrastructure for a five-year period from 1 April 2017, and it is important that that is backdated so that it truly supports telecommunications companies that invest in their fibre network. It is also important that the Government will cover the full costs of that relief. As a former councillor, I know the impact that Government reliefs can have on local government, and it is important to note that the Government have said here that, because of the measure’s importance, they will meet the full cost of the relief.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) for mentioning the impact on Scotland. The Bill, of course, has territorial extent to England and Wales, but the Barnett formula applies, so it is important that we recognise how it affects the whole United Kingdom.

As we have heard, constituencies vary across the UK, from tightly packed urban settings to sparser rural settings. Superfast broadband, based on part-fibre, part-copper technology as today, is now available to 93% of premises, which is good progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills spoke about the progress of the internet, and I recall having a dial-up modem that would beep away before connecting at perhaps 28 kilobits per second—FaceTime or Skype would have been inconceivable in those days. We have made huge progress, and 93% of premises being able to access the part-copper, part-fibre service is good news, but the proposed relief provides—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—£60 million-worth of support to telecoms companies that invest in their fibre network by installing new fibre lines.

Virgin Media is now part of Liberty Global, which, to deviate slightly, shows the importance of having a competitive corporation tax regime. As has already been noted, a competitive corporation tax regime means a company such as Liberty has invested in Britain and bought Virgin Media, and is now taking it forward. I would have thought that the Bill will boost Virgin Media’s £3 billion “project lightning” network expansion, as well as plans by Openreach, a subsidiary of BT, to increase its investment in fibre optic. The Bill will also help smaller alternative players, which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said were priced out of the market in the past due to the impact of business rates and other competitive and regulatory pressures.

I welcome the Government’s aim, through this and other measures, to provide superfast broadband speeds of 24 megabits per second, or more, for at least 95% of the United Kingdom, which is progress beyond what we have achieved to date, but we should go further. That is why I am pleased that the Digital Economy Act 2017 provides for every household to have a legal right to request a fast broadband connection.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I do not apologise for reinforcing the important point, in case Opposition Members say it has already been made, that 95% coverage still means that 5% of our constituents are left out, so will my hon. Friend join me in pressing the Government to ensure that the service is truly universal? Although we welcome the measures set out in the Bill, we are still speaking up for our constituents, the remaining 5%, who are waiting.

[Mr Jayawardena]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and cogent point. He is right to champion the interests of all the United Kingdom, which is why the universal service obligation is so important. The obligation, I am sure the Minister will agree, is only the first step towards ensuring that Britain is the most competitive country and is the place where businesses based elsewhere in the world want to do business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills also noted, that is even more important in a post-Brexit world. We must ensure that we are absolutely match fit and ready to go in the next century, which is why it is important that every household has a legal right to request a fast broadband connection.

As has become customary in our Wednesday exchanges, I will reference points raised by my constituents. This is not a maiden speech, but Hazeley Lea, a lovely part of my constituency, gets less than half a megabit per second, which is totally unacceptable. Worse, residents say that they have too much downtime because the current connection—part-copper, part-fibre—is unreliable. It is not just homes, individuals and families but diversified rural businesses that are affected. One constituent says:

“Just yesterday, I saw a third visit this week by Openreach to my immediate neighbour. I took the opportunity to talk to the engineer on site who confirmed there was a major problem perhaps with old underground cabling to the area simply giving up. He also confirmed that none of the line managers are likely to take this further because of the costs to BT to supply new cabling.”

That demonstrates that what the Government are trying to do is right. Not only are they addressing the old underground cabling that is simply giving up—the cabling was introduced many, many years ago for technologies that are now old-fashioned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said—but they are tackling the costs that apply to businesses through business rates and other regulatory matters. The costs, particularly business rates, have been prohibitive in helping businesses to invest.

I was on a British-American Parliamentary Group visit to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where the weather was almost as good as it has been here recently. Importantly, I found out that a £70 million grant had got local people—the Chattanooga area has a population of just over 500,000—not 24 megabits per second, which is the UK Government’s measure of success in this phase of superfast broadband, but 1 gigabit per second through providing fibre to the premises, not just fibre to the cabinet. That is what the Government are trying to do, and it is the way forward.

Coming back across the pond to Stratfield Saye, the seat of the Duke of Wellington, the exchange there is a problem because, at present, the broadband connection given to my constituents, and undoubtedly to the Duke of Wellington, comes from Mortimer across the county boundary in Berkshire, instead of from Bramley in my constituency and the county of Hampshire. Naturally, Bramley is much closer to Stratfield Saye than Mortimer will ever be. Indeed, the length of cabling required from the exchange to the home would be cut in half if the connection were provided from Bramley. That shows the lack of flexibility in the system. We need to ensure that there is the right technology in the right places to serve people in the 21st century, not the convenience of telecommunications operators from the 20th century.

Some people in Bramley are nearer Chineham in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), but none the less they are connected by cables from Bramley. Those cables are actually steel, not copper, because apparently when the cables were installed by BT, then state-owned—I do not know whether the Labour party plans to renationalise BT, too—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) says it is a possibility, so perhaps he would like to clarify the matter at the Dispatch Box. The point I was making was that BT simply said, “It is all right, we don’t have to face any competition. We’ll just shove some steel cabling in there and it doesn’t matter what happens to local people.” Of course when we were talking about telephone and analogue technology, that was fine, but we are in this new digital age now and we need to make sure people have the right technology to their doorstep. That is why we must tackle this head-on.

I do not want to be totally critical of BT, as it has done a lot of good work in enabling a lot of cabinets and coming up with flexibility in the way those things are delivered. For example, in the parish of Ellisfield in my constituency BT came up with a match funding scheme that said, “If the community can raise some of the money, we will put in the other half.” That is a very innovative scheme for a community so rural that it made this commercially unviable to deliver. But therein lies the problem: no one should be penalised for accessing what is now a utility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) rightly said—people should be able to expect this. Charging people £558 per dwelling not only is on the cusp of what BT might ordinarily provide as a commercial arrangement, but it was penalising residents in rural areas for living where they do.

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I take my hon. Friend from Hampshire to Dorset and endorse what he is saying? He is advocating greater flexibility within BT and saying that although some good work is being done, more could and should be done. Does he agree that we need flexibility across the piece, not just in Hampshire and his beautiful constituency, so that where difficult rural issues arise, sensible solutions are found?

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend makes an important further contribution to this debate and is right in what he says. Let me take him back to the further remarks from my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, who pointed out that Brexit provides an opportunity, because EU state aid legislation got in the way of allowing local communities to come up with solutions. When I was a local councillor, we introduced CITI—the communications improvement and technology infrastructure fund—which was a new way of providing match funding from the borough council, but it was then ruled out of order because it was deemed “state aid”. Not only had we, through careful management, kept council tax down and not increased it, by using the excellent initiatives from this Government on match funding and helping local councils keep council tax down, but the money that we had saved and that we wanted to put to good use for the residents of Basingstoke and Deane in north Hampshire could not be used because of state aid rules. So we must tackle these things and we must deliver those solutions for local people.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the important points he is making about the combination of local government and local IT companies. We have a similar situation in west Oxfordshire, where we have a number of excellent companies. Does he agree that through good local governance and providing freedom for local companies, with sensibly managed local finance, we can find the solution to the internet shortages—the notspots we have been talking about?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right: this is all part of the competitive nature that we need to try to ensure is supported. We need to provide local solutions to local problems. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are aware that Hampshire County Council has been working to go beyond 96% connectivity—[Interruption.] If you were not aware before, you are now. That could be met if we allowed local firms to meet that 4% shortfall. If we allowed local firms to bid for further funding from the state, unhindered by EU state aid rules—indeed, instead, further supported by these business rates initiatives—we would close that 4% gap without a shadow of a doubt.

Let me turn from BT, which has had a great benefit from the current business rate arrangements, to Virgin Media, which should benefit from this. I outlined that earlier, but it is important to talk a little more about it to outline the importance of the issue to a British company based in my constituency; it has its corporate headquarters in Hook. It has run a competition, through its own commercial judgment, to supercharge local communities. Although the company has not yet supercharged Hook, which is where it is based—I hope it is listening and will do so shortly—it has agreed to supercharge Hartley Wintney and Phoenix Green, just down the road. That means that those places will have ultrafast fibre to the premises very shortly, which is good news because residents there will get a head start on what the Government aspire for the whole of the country to receive. Those residents will receive fibre to the premises, which means they will be eligible to get the 1 gigabit per second telecommunications connectivity that is critical for the future.

Businesses will benefit as well—this is not confined to households. In Yateley in my constituency, Samsung has its European quality control centre. If we want those technical businesses to be based in constituencies such as mine, we need to ensure they have the connectivity to match. Samsung being the technical giant that it is, it needs that more than perhaps anyone else. It is therefore brilliant news to hear that these business rates initiatives will be introduced.

This is not just about the giants; it is also about the smaller businesses. Fleet, the biggest town in my constituency, has a business called CV-Library. It was set up in 2000, in the dotcom boom era. Although that was a very different internet era, that remains an internet business and it is very successful. It was set up by a young carpet fitter who was looking for work and it is now the UK’s third biggest jobs board. Of course it has thrived on the great number of new jobs created under the economic management of this Government, and it is one of the top 500 most visited websites in the UK. So we are talking about a well reputed website.

That small business has come a long way, with Resume-Library allowing it to operate in the United States, and it is now thriving as an international business. Again, as with Samsung, if we want such businesses to be based outside the main towns and cities—outside London and across the country, ensuring that we create an economy of the nations and regions, not just of London —we need connectivity that serves businesses such as CV-Library and allows them to thrive and to connect with the world, as CV-Library has done with Resume-Library and will, I am sure, do in future. Incidentally, it was the first jobs website to allow people to apply for jobs on a mobile phone. I shall come back to that important point in a moment.

One resident in Bramley told me that he found it

“incredible that we are surrounded by much better services and yet it appears that we are unable to access these.”

People such as that resident from Bramley are used to going on their mobile phone and connecting to 4G, yet in their house they cannot connect to a decent fixed-broadband service. He also said:

“I have been told by BT that it is not possible to switch exchanges”

from one to another

“as this is ‘too difficult’”.

In the mobile age, when people can go about their daily business while they walk to work, it is not acceptable for something to be simply too difficult for a monopoly provider. We must do better, and the Government are.

It is important that the 100% business rates relief is focused on encouraging the full-fibre initiative and getting that to the premises. Indeed, the digital infrastructure investment fund has also been designed as an incentive. Traditionally, it has been difficult to finance digital infrastructure investment in Britain because the industry has been relatively young. The lack of certainty about future demand has made investment difficult to secure. I hope that the digital infrastructure investment fund, along with business rates initiatives such as the one in the Bill, will ignite interest, so that private finance will invest in this important sector. Digital infrastructure is a critical part of our infrastructure, like roads and rail, so I hope that the private interest we really need will be drawn in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) mentioned, the drawing in of private finance will make the market more competitive and allow local solutions to rise up and meet local people’s needs.

Full-fibre networks are so much more resilient than the traditional copper-wire networks. I referred to my constituent in Hazeley Lea who told me that the copper cabling was failing. That is a problem not only for Hazeley Lea and North East Hampshire, but for the whole country, because the internet is delivered to most homes in Britain by underground copper cables. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to the green cabinets that people see springing up, and from which bushes are cut away so that they can be enabled for fibre, but the final part of the service is still delivered by copper. The wires can be degraded by distance, as has been the case for my constituents in Stratfield Saye and Hazeley Lea; indeed, the constituents in Bramley who live near Chineham have the problem of the long distance from the exchange in Bramley.

Full-fibre networks seek to run the fibre connections straight to the doors of homes or businesses. I make one plea to the Government, because there is still no capability in planning legislation and the national planning policy framework for local councils to mandate fibre to the premises, which would solve the problem referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. They can request it, but the only requirement they can make is that there be a telephone connection to a home. I have been told that, if it is done at scale, particularly on larger developments, the cost difference is marginal, if existent at all. The Government could easily remove that difficulty for councils to mandate fibre, and it would be transformational in the new homes that the Government aspire to build throughout the whole United Kingdom.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that copper wires can be degraded by age and distance, but volume of traffic is also a problem. Does he agree that when, on a Saturday night, for example, a popular programme is on or more people want to be streaming or gaming, the whole system slows down and grinds to a halt? That is also part of the degradation process.

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that copper’s capacity is insufficient for today’s challenges. We must make sure that we deal with not only today’s challenges but tomorrow’s, so we must ensure that there is more fibre than we even need today. We do not want to end up, perhaps in five or 10 years—not a million miles away—with the fibre we install today not being good enough for the challenges of tomorrow.

In turning to the challenges of tomorrow, it is important to consider mobile communication, which is enabled by the fibre broadband that links the mobile masts. Fibre provides the connectivity, via the masts, to users who perhaps want to do their banking on their phones, as several Members have said. Deploying mobile infrastructure remains challenging at times, particularly in remote locations or among difficult topography. It is important for us to consider the viability of such initiatives as we move from 4G to 5G, and as we do so, perhaps we could find a remedy for those communities that have not even moved to 3G or 4G. We must ensure that those initiatives are viable, so that no one is left behind. Mobile telecommunications can be an excellent way of providing mobile broadband—fast broadband—to rural communities, instead of running fibre to those rural homes. It could be that part of the solution, part of dealing with the final 4%, is to ensure that fibre is run to mobile masts, which are then accessible to those rural communities.

Reducing operating costs is critical to ensure that the potential economic viability of these sites is considered properly. I am sure that the Government will consider that in the deliberation that they will doubtless have in the time ahead. Targeted business rates relief to enable fibre cabling to be rolled out to those hard-to-reach areas would be particularly helpful in notspots that have been badly served by telecoms to date and could be much better served by telecoms in future.

It is important to prioritise sites such as railways and motorways, as mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). They demonstrated that to have connected commuters, which was the term used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, we need fibre to be run alongside railways.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have to sit down for a second. We cannot both be on our feet. I have given a lot of leeway, but I do not want to get too involved in 4G, 5G, and telecommunications being passed down motorways and railways, as they have absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. I know that you have been asked to filibuster, but do not worry because we have so many more speakers to come and you might deprive them. Come on, Mr Jayawardena.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Mr Deputy Speaker, filibuster never. I am informing the nation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Yes, but it has got to be on the subject that we are discussing. We will be talking about cricket next. Come on.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Mr Deputy Speaker suggests that this is a filibuster. My hon. Friend has hardly cleared his throat.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The worry is that I have heard too much already.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are very, very kind, but I shall be bringing my remarks to a close very shortly.

It is important to recognise that new fibre, which will be rolled out under business rates relief, allows for better mobile connectivity in those hard-to-reach areas.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point on the topic of infrastructure around railways and roads. Does he agree that airports are important and need infrastructure as well?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I have a good suggestion for the House: I think you should put in for an Adjournment debate on that very subject. With two Members, I am sure that you can do the subject justice.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Mr Deputy Speaker, as ever, you make an excellent suggestion. I will speak to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

As we allow fibre to be rolled out, using this relief, to areas that have not been accessible in the past, it is important to reflect on the way in which people are changing their behaviour. People are moving to mobile. We need to ensure that accessibility to the mobile network—the fibre network—is possible. That is why it is critical that we work with companies such as Network Rail to roll out fibre on its land as well as across other people’s land.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, all of this is in stark contrast to the way in which we used to work. It is important that people are helped along this journey. If we want to roll out more fibre, we need to ensure that there is proven demand for it, otherwise it is simply not commercially viable. We need to reduce the operating costs, which we are doing through business rates relief for the roll-out of new fibre. It is good to see the new digital training opportunities that have been created as part of the digital strategy. The new digital skills partnership is seeing Government, business, charities and voluntary organisations come together, which is really positive news. I should declare an interest, so I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A plan by Lloyds Banking Group to give face-to-face digital skills training to 2.5 million people, charities and small businesses by 2020 is a good example of that partnership. Google has pledged to provide five hours of digital skills as part of its commitment, too. The idea has been adopted by business.

The strategy and these plans demonstrate that the Government take businesses and people seriously in rolling out fibre broadband across the country. This is part of the cuts to business rates that benefit all rate payers and will be worth almost £9 billion over the next five years, and it is part of the Government’s focus on ensuring that we create an economy that serves the whole country—all the nations and regions. It is about ensuring that the Government are committed to the long-term reform of this country.

Who would have thought that Alibaba and Amazon would be the big retailers of today, not the greengrocer on the high street? Who would have thought that we would have been speaking to people across the world on FaceTime instead of flying across the world to see them? Who would have thought that people would be able to watch this speech on their mobile phone rather than read it, dare I say, in Hansard? I am sure that many will.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have a slight problem. I did not expect to have to bring in a time limit—[Interruption.] Seriously. I do not want to have to introduce a time limit, but we have the summing up in about an hour and there are still five speakers to come, so can we aim at around 12 minutes? If this continues, two speakers will drop off the end, and I certainly would not want that to happen when Members have been sitting here all day. I want to help Members.

20:41

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

The words will ring in my ears: filibuster never, inform the nation always. That is a lesson for us all.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will give you an extra lesson—[Interruption.] You will have to take your seat for a second, though. You might be informing the nation, but it has to be on the subject we are discussing, otherwise you are out of order.

[Bim Afolami]

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for that kind reminder.

This Bill matters. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), the former Minister, mentioned, it is not necessarily the most thrilling Bill. It is relatively short, with six clauses; as a former lawyer, I can appreciate that brevity is often harder than writing something very long, so I admire the draftsmen’s ability in putting together something so succinct. The Bill should have strong support not just from the Government but from all parties, as has already been suggested by Opposition speakers.

My constituents in Hitchin and Harpenden, only 30 to 40 miles from central London, face patchy broadband coverage in many areas. I appreciate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage—it is often harder to get broadband in spread out villages and rural areas than in tower blocks and urban areas. It is physically harder; I appreciate that, but the village of Kimpton, slap-bang in the middle of my constituency, has pretty terrible broadband.

Let me give the House some statistics to back my point up. In Kimpton, no residence or business receives superfast broadband. We are in the bottom 7% in the country for average download speed and in the bottom 0.5% for connections of more than 30 megabits per second. There is still a job to do and, with due deference as a new Member of the House, I say to the Government that we still have a job to do connecting up rural areas in our country. We should not forget that.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, my 92-year-old aunt lives in Kimpton, and he is speaking eloquently on her behalf. Does he agree that it is most important, particularly in rural areas, that older people living in the community should have access that keeps them engaged with their friends and family?

[Bim Afolami]

I agree. It is important for people to be connected to friends and family; the converse situation is one of loneliness in many respects. We live in a society that is increasingly atomised, so it is helpful to ensure that older members of society have full digital connectivity. That is another reason why the Bill is important.

At a recent meeting of a local business club in my constituency, a business owner whose business is situated in a rural area just north of Harpenden told me that it takes three days to back up her server, such is the slow download speed. Business rates relief for the installation of full-fibre broadband infrastructure will provide a huge incentive for operators to invest in the broadband network with the latest technology—a point made admirably by several of my hon. Friends, not least my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena).

It is important to consider why, in the broader sense, it is important to have world-leading digital infrastructure. Why are we all here? I shall offer a few observations. We are effectively going through a new industrial revolution. Technology, powered largely by the internet, is driving a global future. This country needs to be at the heart of that, and rolling out full-fibre broadband is central to the challenge. The Bill will make it easier, enabling small businesses in rural areas such as mine to access the superfast broadband they need. As the Minister said, the Bill will break down barriers to business, which everybody wants—at least on our side of the House.

The Bill shows that the Government can, in limited ways and when the time is right, provide innovative solutions to help to solve some of the biggest problems choking up areas of the economy. We need strongly to support the free market and free enterprise with little Government intervention, unless necessary. The Bill and the Government’s actions are bold. We need to be bold enough to use the tools of government to allow the private sector to work more efficiently and incentivise it to provide better results for our constituents, who send us to this place on their behalf, after all.

Business rates relief is welcome, as many hon. Members have said, but I urge the Government to ensure that we do not lose sight of our manifesto commitment to a full review of business rates, and to produce a system that is more fit for purpose. In certain ways, the current system has shown itself to be capricious, cumbersome and, in some senses, frankly unfair.

When discussing a Bill on digital infrastructure, it is appropriate to point out the fundamental asymmetry and unfairness for bricks-and-mortar businesses paying the levy in comparison to the digital technology-based businesses with which they often compete on a day-to-day basis. We all know businesses on our high streets that have this problem. It is important for the House to recognise that many international taxation treaties inhibit the United Kingdom from taking unilateral action on the taxation of global technology businesses because their nature is, indeed, global rather than domestic. Everybody can appreciate the difficulties with that. I urge the Government to look for more international agreement on the issue so that we can start to address the balance of the business rates paid by physical, bricks-and-mortar businesses compared with those paid by their digital cousins and friends.

In staying true to the detail and narrow nature of the Bill, it is incumbent on me briefly to talk about 5G mobile broadband, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. Now, this may seem like a dull topic, but I assure Members that it is not—it can be very dull. The reason is that 5G, like 4G or 3G, is something we take for granted; it is just there. We do not think enough about where it comes from or the work that goes into it. However, 5G will be the enabler for so much technological development in this country.

O2 estimated in a report that 5G infrastructure will be just as pivotal as broadband to the wider economy over the next five to 10 years and will greatly boost British productivity, which all Members of this House should wish to see. The benefits are manifold, from telecare health apps, to smarter cities, to more seamless public services. Those are some of the many benefits that 5G mobile broadband can help to bring about, and I urge Members to support the Bill, which provides some of the digital plumbing that will enable us to bring tangible benefits to our constituents.

To take up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire about 3G and 4G, it is important to note that some areas, especially rural areas, are still not on 3G or 4G—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Bim Afolami]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am coming to a conclusion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, it is not that. I am trying to be helpful. I am bothered about time. I would like us to discuss broadband infrastructure to houses, rather than 3G, 4G and 5G, which is mobile phones. If we were having a debate on mobile telecommunications, it would be brilliant, but we are not. I have allowed a bit of freedom, but I do not want the debate to concentrate on that issue. The hon. Member for North East Hampshire should know better than to lead you on into discussing something I have told him off for.

[Michael Tomlinson]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Forgive me, but this is my very first point of order, and I am sure you will indulge me as a relatively new Member of Parliament. However, in clause 1, there is reference to mobile phone telecommunication as well as—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Don’t worry—I can help you. I am very bothered about the length of time and the number of speakers I am trying to get in, so if we can concentrate on the bolts of what it is about, it will be much easier to get everybody in to speak. The last thing I want to do is not get you in to speak, seeing as you have sat here all day. So I think it is better if I can help the House move along in the area I think we need to discuss. To go back and talk about 3G over 4G is not relevant to today’s debate.

[Michael Tomlinson]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will make the rulings. You can listen to my rulings, and we can have a discussion later if we need to, because I want to hear you speak in a little while.

[Bim Afolami]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In closing, I should say that the Bill is a significant step forward. It helps our country to lead the world in a new industrial revolution based on digital technology. It also shows that this Government, and indeed any Government using their powers effectively, can make truly positive impacts on people’s lives when acting in the right way—in this case, to enable superfast broadband to reach more people more quickly.

20:52

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the many distinguished speakers in this debate, who have made so many excellent points—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who so eloquently laid out many of the issues that many of us face in our own constituencies.

I have a few brief points to make, but if I may I shall start with a little trip down memory lane. I have recently purchased a new iPhone. In doing so, I remembered the first iPhone I ever bought, which connected to a thing called EDGE—it did not have 3G. Of course, those days are long behind us, and with my new device, I can do a great many tasks I just could not have thought of in those days.

I say that because today is my baby son Henry’s first birthday, and I apologise to him in advance, if he ever watches this speech, that I am here, rather than speaking to him. But all is not lost, because, owing to the wonderful invention of mobile phones and the internet, I can take part in the happy day. I can, for example, see him and speak to him on Skype. For his part, he wonders why on earth his father’s voice is coming out of a small box my wife is holding in front of him.

I can also see photographs and videos of him opening presents. These presents were, of course, ordered from a well-known, very large internet company—and a gigantic number of them there are, too. His everyday necessities are ordered through the internet; there is no longer a requirement to go to the shop. Indeed, it is possible, although I do not have this system myself, to link up the house so that I could turn the lights up and down in his room if I wished. I could check on his welfare through a webcam that I could view on my mobile phone. The most extraordinary, and perhaps slightly disturbing, thing is that there is a teddy bear in his room—a company called CloudPets produces these—and, using an app on this iPhone, I can go online and record a message so that when he plays with the teddy bear and presses the button on it he can hear my voice. This is lovely, of course, on his first birthday.

However, the internet is not just something to amuse, and perhaps confuse or even slightly frighten, infants; it is of everyday importance for us all. As many hon. Members have rightly said, these days the internet needs to be seen, as it certainly is by the people of Witney and west Oxfordshire, as another essential utility. We all know that we are able to get about by road and by train, and that we are connected to water, electricity and, in some cases, gas. We expect those things now. Once, not so many years ago, the internet was seen as a bit of a luxury that people might want in order to go online and look at websites, but it was not something that they had to do. Now it very much is, because so many services take place online that it is increasingly hard to use them if we wish to telephone. Utility companies, for example, increasingly encourage us to go online, perhaps to pay a bill or change a tariff, rather than ring to speak to a person. It is therefore absolutely critical that everybody has immediate access to these services.

I would like, if I may, to clarify some of the terminology that we have discussed in the course of this debate. We all fall very quickly into the habit of referring to fast broadband, superfast broadband and ultrafast broadband —or full broadband, as it were. Superfast broadband—I appreciate that the House is aware of this, but it is worth dwelling on for a moment—uses fibre-optic cable to get to the cabinet but then, from cabinet to house, only copper. That is an old system that does not carry the data required these days due to attenuation—the breakdown of signal over distance and the physical effect of the current going through the copper. The signal slows down so that even if there is fibre-optic cable running to the cabinet, by the time it gets to the house the user does not necessarily receive anything like superfast coverage. That is why, although I entirely bow to the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and thank him, on behalf of constituents, for all the work that he did, there is still a job to do, as I think we would all accept. Superfast broadband is being rolled out across the entire country, but still, in some places, 5% to 10% of people do not have it, never mind anything else. We increasingly need fibre-optic cable running to the property, which enables full-speed broadband all the way.

In my professional life before I was elected, I saw exactly why that is. I know that other hon. Members will feel exactly the same. As a barrister, I would be away at court; the papers are often sent through to barristers at the last minute. They would sometimes be very big bundles, and our clerks would wish to email them to us to save us having to go into chambers to pick them up before going home. If I had been in court in, say, London, and I wanted to go to chambers in Winchester or Oxford before I went home, I would wish to avoid that step. I would have to go to my home in Bladon, a village in Oxfordshire, to look at the email to see whether the papers had been sent to me, but there was not enough broadband speed to download them, so I would have to get into the car, drive into chambers, pick up the physical bundles, and then drive back. All the while, I was wasting time, wasting money, downgrading my productivity, and adding to the traffic and pollution on the roads, all of which was unnecessary. When people write to me, as they frequently do, to say that it is impossible for them to carry out their business, I entirely understand their point, because I have suffered that very same frustration.

West Oxfordshire is full of businesses that operate from home. Before this debate, I had a look through my emails to see how many villages had written to me. Over the course of the brief time I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been contacted by constituents from the Wortons, Spelsbury, Kencot, Lechlade, Bladon, Bampton, Bruern, Filkins, Stanton Harcourt, Chastleton, New Yatt, Sandford St Martin, Fawler, Minster Lovell, Taynton, Langford and Standlake. That is 17 or 18 places in all.

I shall concentrate on the example of Chastleton. A gentleman from the parish meeting wrote to me—I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he made his point succinctly—to say that Chastleton is lucky to get a speed of 1.5 megabits per second and that that has implications. First, businesses simply cannot work from home or find it very difficult to do so. Secondly, as I have alluded to from my own experience, it affects traffic flow because people have to either collect items in person or go to their workplace in Oxford, thereby adding to congestion on the A40, which hon. Members will know is a subject that I mention frequently. Thirdly, on education, children who are required to do their homework online simply cannot do so in many cases.

If anything, my correspondent has missed out one of the real drawbacks of the absence of a proper broadband connection, which is its effect on elderly care. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) has referred accurately to an atomised society. When we go away to work, in many cases we leave elderly relatives without immediate access to family. It is absolutely crucial that people are able to make contact with loved ones quickly and easily, and to access the necessary services, including online medical advice and transport-booking facilities.

I remember my father going abroad on business trips. He would telephone during the week and we would wait while the signal bounced off the satellite, went around the world and came back again. We are a long way from those days. When I went to work in New Zealand some years ago, I was able to have a video conference with my loved ones at home and it was set up very quickly. That is all well and good. Those powers exist, but only if people have an adequate internet signal, which is clearly necessary for businesses, the elderly, family and care.

I know that many hon. Members represent rural areas where this issue is the chief concern. However, the situation is much the same in cities. The speeds experienced by many householders in Westminster and Lambeth are not much better than those in the rural areas we represent, so let us not think that the issue affects only those of us who have lots of small villages in our area. It affects cities as well. In fact, a lady who lives on Buttercross Lane in my biggest town, Witney, wrote to me to make a point about developers, which has also been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), who is no longer in her place. My correspondent was frustrated that the cabinet is very close but the developers are not required to connect the rest of the properties. That issue clearly causes immense and understandable frustration for my constituent and many others.

The digital economy has contributed about 7% of national output over the past year and has grown three times faster than other areas of the economy, so it is of enormous significance to the economy, particularly in areas such as mine, where so many people work from home, are self-employed and run small businesses. I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for small and micro businesses. The issue is very close to my heart.

There have been many bank closures in Carterton. As other hon. Members have said, we are told that that is because people are increasingly using those services online. That is all well and good, provided that they have the ability to do so. Although someone in Carterton might have a strong signal—not everybody does—that is not necessarily the case in the surrounding villages. They need one if they are to pay council tax or do internet shopping.

When I was younger, if I wanted a particular book I had to order it from the local bookshop. It might be sourced from the other side of the world and take months to arrive. Some of the romance of that has been lost, because we can now order almost anything we want and it will appear in a matter of days or, at most, weeks. That is one of the wonders of the internet age. The same is true of music. Music lovers may remember that once upon a time, if we wanted to listen to a hard-to-find song or album, it was sometimes possible to track it down, but it might have to be ordered from abroad. Now, the many well-known streaming services make it possible to listen to whatever we like immediately, as long as we have a good enough internet service.

Decent, high-speed, ultrafast broadband is absolutely crucial for day-to-day necessities and for business. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is not in his place, has given us an inkling of what is required in rural economies. In years gone by, the biggest contributor, directly and indirectly, to the economy of Witney and west Oxfordshire was something called the Cotswold Lion. The Cotswold Lion is actually a sheep, and in the not-too-distant past—only 50 or so years ago—the blankets and gloves made from its fleece were the mainstay of Witney’s economy. Now, we are looking to unlock tourism. It is essential that those who provide accommodation in bed and breakfasts, and in the great many houses that are available on short lets, can get those properties online.

On Saturday I attended the Witney carnival. At many such events all over west Oxfordshire, people sell things such as art or food products at small stalls. All such businesses are made possible and successful by access to good, fast broadband. Without it, they simply will not work. I apologise for saying it again, as I have done on many occasions in this House, but broadband is not a luxury; it is absolutely essential in this day and age. I entirely agree with west Oxfordshire residents who write to me to point out that they have a slow connection and they ought to have a fast one. They are absolutely right. It is essential in their personal lives and their businesses.

Broadband is entirely necessary for all of industry, in business premises, in home businesses and in the tourism sector. As I have said, a great deal of work has been done. I thank the Government for the work that was done before I came into Parliament and for their continuing efforts to roll out fast broadband across my constituency and beyond, but we must complete the job. I applaud the introduction of a legal right to superfast broadband. Coverage in Witney is about 90%, but we need to work towards 100%. I welcome the package of measures that the Government are introducing, which include the universal service obligation and £400 million towards the digital infrastructure investment fund.

As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), I particularly encourage private investment. I am grateful to BT for being proactive in my constituency and trying to connect as many people as possible. With sound money, good local governance, strong local councils and wise investment in flexible, agile and cost-effective local companies—there are several such companies in my constituency—we can provide this full solution.

I will briefly touch on the two clauses in the Bill that I consider to be most relevant. The first of them quite rightly puts business rates relief for broadband alongside the existing relief for small businesses, charitable organisations and rural businesses. Clause 6 promises that the effect will be more or less immediate, and I applaud that.

My final point—I do not want to test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker—concerns 5G. I welcome the fact that broadband and mobile telephony will be combined over the coming years. As we seek to bridge the digital divide, we really must fix notspots. I applaud everything that the Government have done towards that, and I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call Mr Tomlinson, I want to help him by saying that he might want to take a few pages out of his speech. If hon. Members keep to 10 minutes each, they will all get a chance to speak.

21:10

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your guidance and for your earlier ruling, which has given me the opportunity to speak for 10 minutes, rather than the nine, eight or seven minutes I might otherwise have had.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. If it is helpful I can make the limit eight minutes to give someone else more time.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My meaning is the exact opposite. I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), for whom I feel great sympathy. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends as well as Opposition Members have been in a similar situation when trying to communicate with members of their family on birthdays, important anniversaries and the like. He and I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—he has arrived in the Chamber at the appropriate moment to hear me say this—were members of the same chambers and therefore in exactly the same situation when trying to download papers attached to an email to make sure that they arrived in court on time.

I warmly welcome the Bill. As we have heard so many hon. Members say, the importance of broadband cannot be overstated. It is as important as road and rail, and is a vital part of our infrastructure. Although I am pleased with the progress the Government are making, I will dwell on one or two brief points about where improvements still need to be made.

I start with words of congratulation, because it is right to acknowledge where the Government are moving in the right direction, and to be able to stand up and say that 93% coverage for superfast broadband is indeed an achievement. I applaud the ambition to achieve 95% coverage by the end of 2017, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are on target for that. However, it is frustrating for the 5% who are still left without it. That point has been repeated this evening, but I make no apologies for repeating it again. Many of us who have spoken represent constituents who are in exactly that position, and I know that a number of my constituents are not consoled by the fact that 95% of the rest of the population have access to superfast broadband while they do not.

I need not dwell on specific internet speeds; suffice it to say that the 1,000 megabits per second lauded in relation to the Bill is to be warmly welcomed, but that figure would be staggering to my many constituents who are struggling with 0.5 to 1 megabits per second and really cannot imagine a speed as vast as 1,000 megabits per second. However, I will, if I may, dwell on two or three brief constituency examples that constituents have raised with me. I must declare an interest in that, in the village of Lytchett Matravers, I am affected by many of the same issues.

The first example involves a constituent who wrote to me expressing great concern about broadband speeds of between 0.5 and 1 megabits per second. As has been said, we use the internet for more and more things these days, including education. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) mentioned researching points for educational purposes, but it goes further than that because many of our children are asked to do homework based on the internet and purely on the internet; in fact, they have to access the internet to download the homework to do that evening. One constituent wrote to me saying that they have to ration the amount of homework that their family can do, with the children taking it in turns to get on to the computer and complete their homework, because speeds of 0.5 to 1 megabits per second simply do not allow two children to do their homework at one and the same time. The additional point was made that updating software—with Microsoft, people do not get a wonderful DVD or disc to put into the computer these days; they actually have to download it from the internet—simply cannot be done if the speeds are not fast enough.

The second example I was recently given by a constituent involves a rural business. Again, the constituent lives about 100 metres from a different network that is much faster and would allow the business to function properly. As it is, he is struggling on less than 1 megabit per second and has to go to his place of work to download his work. The speeds where he lives simply will not allow it. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) mentioned an example in his constituency in which BT was flexible, but in this case BT has not been flexible enough and will not allow my constituent to change from one exchange to another, despite the distance of merely 50 metres or so.

I am conscious of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to make one or two final points about postcodes, if I may. I know that the Minister is soon to jump up to the Dispatch Box, but I want him to take this point on board. Quite often the data are arranged by postcode and the percentages are calculated on that basis. However, some roads have the same postcode but different exchanges. I can think of one example in Dorset where it is claimed people have the potential to access superfast broadband on the basis of the postcode alone, but that is not the case because the one postcode has two separate exchanges.

I warmly welcome the measures in the Bill. It will not solve all the problems overnight. When my constituents look at the full-fibre speeds, with fibre to the door rather than just to the cabinet, of course they applaud them, but they want them and they want them soon. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for indulging me and for giving me a full 10 minutes, and I sit down in advance of reaching those 10 minutes.

21:16

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak for longer.

It is a pleasure to speak on this Bill tonight, because when I campaigned in the by-election back in December broadband was one of the major issues. Indeed, trying to deliver broadband throughout my constituency is part of the five-point plan on which many hon. Friends helped me campaign back in those winter months.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) that broadband is essential. That is a relatively new thing. I am not that old, but when I look back to my childhood, I remember there being one BBC computer in a corner of the school that we went to use a class at a time. Only when I got to university did we really start to use the internet and have the ability to send emails. At that stage, we were sending emails only to other people within the university—in my case mostly to the man who is now my husband.

Now, we cannot conceive of how we could possibly live without the internet, whether we are young or old. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) said, people need it to be able to do homework. The children of my constituents and my own children have been given homework on Sumdog and other maths applications that they are supposed to do online, but they simply cannot do it with broadband speeds of less than 2 megabits per second. That is affecting the educational opportunities of the children in our most rural constituencies.

Young people in general are having difficulties. When they turn on the television and turn on Sky broadband, for example, they are told they can watch downloads, TV on demand or downloaded films, but they cannot because those things are not available to people who live in many of the rural areas I represent, where download speeds of less than 2 megabits per second are very common.

It is perhaps for business people that the lack of broadband represents the greatest problem. It is a particular problem for small businesses and, in rural areas, for farmers, who have to complete their single farm payments online. Reloading and reloading and reloading that page becomes very wearisome. We are now being asked to complete tax returns online—in fact, we will be asked to do so four times a year. VAT returns are also done online. All this becomes more and more wearisome when we have to do it online and we simply cannot do it. When businesses want to advertise for new employees they do it online and when people apply for those jobs they do it online. All those things cannot be achieved because we do not have access to what is now, in effect, a utility. In many parts of my constituency, it is not possible for families to do their shopping online. They write to me complaining, “We live in the most rural area in the country, and we cannot order our shopping.”

This is, perhaps, of even greater concern to the elderly. Jo Cox founded the Commission on Loneliness to help people in our community, such as the elderly, who are cut off from society. That may be more prevalent in rural communities than it is in cities. The internet offers elderly people living in such communities the opportunity to be connected to their families through Skype and other methods of communication. It also offers opportunities for telemedicine. At a time when we face challenges in relation to social care and the elderly, telemedicine and the use of the internet to monitor the condition of and check on the wellbeing of an elderly person can enable us to improve our social care offering to people in rural communities, and communities everywhere; but if we do not have the necessary internet resources, we cannot do that.

I welcome the Government’s 93% superfast broadband coverage—we have made great strides in increasing the number of people who have access to this wonder—but for those who do not have access to it, the position has become increasingly frustrating. Some people living in Wellingore wrote to me saying, “We can see the cabinet, but we do not have access to it, because we are on a different exchange, and by the time the signal reaches us from that cabinet, it is so slow as to be virtually useless.” Those people are being supported through the community fibre partnership, and I hope that in time they will be able to benefit from good broadband. The situation is similar in Swaton. A constituent wrote to me saying that they were full of excitement at the sight of the superfast broadband sign with the little box in the corner. It is right outside their house, but they are not connected to it; they are connected to one down the road.

People in Sudbrook—here I must declare an interest, in that Sudbrook happens to be the nearest village to where I live—were originally told that they would have broadband by this September. Unfortunately, however, they have now been told that that will not necessarily happen because of the railway line, although the railway line is not new but has been there for a long time. Their broadband seems to have been indefinitely postponed. It beggars belief that in this day and age something as simple as a branch line should prevent the upgrade of a broadband network.

Overall, I think that the Bill, which will abolish business rates on fibre broadband for five years, will encourage the placement of new fibre lines, and I hope very much that that will happen in the rural components of my constituency. I hope that, in focusing this benefit, the Minister is minded to ensure that providing broadband for people in rural communities who are currently suffering from a lack of access to that vital utility is given a higher priority than increasing broadband speeds from very, very fast to even faster in our cities and town centres.

21:19

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be the last Back Bencher to be called in the debate, which has been incredibly interesting, although I think that, at times, the connection between the clauses in the Bill and the contents of speeches was well and truly lost. There was a suggestion that constituents of ours would have been able to watch the debate online. If that is the case, given certain parts of it, I find myself feeling sympathy for the 93% of the public who have such access. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who is no longer present, said that innovation would permit constituents to watch the entirety of his speech online. Conservative Members speculated on whether that same innovation would allow the battery in his phone to last quite as long. Perhaps there is still some way to go.

None the less, this has been an interesting debate, and I am delighted to be able to use the last few minutes to further it. Despite great work by my local authority, East Sussex County Council, and indeed by the Government, too many of my constituents do not have a connection to fast broadband. My constituents’ age profile is high, and in order to balance our local economy we must encourage more working-age people to come to live and work in East Sussex. It is not too far from London, but, from a commuting perspective, particularly given our travails with Southern rail, it is too far to be attractive to many such younger working-age people. My constituency is fortunate in that 75% of it is designated as an area of outstanding beauty, so in that sense it draws people to want to come there to set up their own businesses, but they will not do so without the connectivity of superfast broadband.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend describes a constituency that is different from mine, but in many ways we have similar issues. In Gloucester, we struggle with the black spots that often arise in urban environments. Most of the city is well-covered but there are certain black spots where people cannot access broadband that enables them to work from home. That is similar to the problem that he describes.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is right: urban areas, as well as rural ones, will not continue to regenerate without this problem being fixed.

I welcome the introduction of the Bill and the granting of business rate relief as a result for a five-year period on fibre and 5G installations. That should act as the further incentive that we in my constituency need to provide a fix.

I also welcome the previous Bill’s introduction of the new universal service obligation, which, again, should give the last 7% faster broadband. As has been said, this type of connectivity infrastructure is, in the modern age, akin for our constituents to the delivery of a new road or railway in the past. It is vital for the entire economy that we do not leave these constituents behind.

As well as recognising the investment from the Government via this Bill, and previous funding initiatives, I commend Conservative-run East Sussex County Council and Labour-run Brighton and Hove Borough Council for working together to help businesses and properties across East Sussex to access faster broadband. Through their e-Sussex project, my county has allocated £34 million in funding for areas that are too expensive for the market to upgrade itself. Every exchange in East Sussex will be included, and the current project will cover an area of 660 square miles and over 66,500 premises. It will install over 400 new fibre telecoms cabinets and other structures and will lay over 1,000 km of fibre—the distance between Brighton and Berlin.

The first e-Sussex contract is achieving excellent results in bringing better, more reliable fibre broadband to many areas that would not otherwise benefit from upgraded services. However, there remain properties that are hard to reach—for example, where a property is too far from the upgraded cabinet to benefit from any speed uplift. “Hard to reach” generally means too expensive for the public purse to fund. East Sussex has therefore signed a second contract with BT for further investment, so that an additional 5,000 homes and businesses in East Sussex will be able to access high-speed fibre broadband.

There has been much talk today of political parties coming together over a common interest. Perhaps that local example is a positive illustration of the power of working together.

[Richard Graham]

Have my hon. Friend’s council and the council in Brighton introduced in their planning requirements an absolute requirement on all developers to provide superfast broadband? This is an area where many of our councils around the country could do more, and I would be interested to learn of his experience.

[Huw Merriman]

I do not believe those councils have, but my hon. Friend touches on another issue. I am referring to East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove Borough Council, but outside of Brighton but within East Sussex it is the district councils that would have the planning condition powers to which he refers. Therefore, I doubt that those councils have done so, but this is perhaps a good example. of where districts can work better together with their county cousins.

This might seem like great news for East Sussex, but I am afraid we are starting from a very low base in terms of where we are operating from. The recent report by the consumer organisation Which? found that Rother District Council’s geographical area, which covers the bulk of the 200 square miles of my constituency, is in the bottom 10 of all districts and boroughs in the entire British Isles for average broadband speeds. Rother joins the highlands, the Shetlands and the Orkney Isles in the bottom 10 performing areas. In contrast, the residents of Tamworth, which tops the list for speeds with an average of 30 megabits per second, are much more fortunate. The average speed for Rother is less than 10 megabits per second.

Bearing in mind that 10 megabits per second is deemed to be the minimum acceptable standard by Ofcom, I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment that 100% of my constituents will receive 10 megabits per second by 2020. The Which? report suggests that the increased performance for the Rother District Council area will be vital if the Government are to meet their 100% target. May I therefore put in a blatant invitation to the Minister to meet me to discuss what help could be offered to my constituents in Rother, in addition to the provisions in the Bill and the universal service obligation, to enable me to assist the Government in meeting their target?

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill as part of a package of proactive measures from this Government to deliver faster broadband. I should also mention—notwithstanding the fact that I just said, “in conclusion”—that I welcome the further reforms to the business rate mechanism. I do not wish to wander too far from the topic, but I can think of many examples of business rates having an impact on businesses in which services are being offered. We should not forget, for example, that Members of Parliament are subject to business rates, as I found out to my personal cost when I exceeded my IPSA budget for my staff office. I therefore absolutely welcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) that business rates should be linked to turnover, rather than to premises. That would certainly help my constituency. As a further meander, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

I am much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s dilation. There is no prohibition on him dilating a little further if he is minded to do so. He clearly has an expectant audience.

[Huw Merriman]

You are very kind, Mr Speaker. That is helpful, although I think part of what you said was perhaps inaccurate.

The other point I wanted to mention was corporation tax. I hope Opposition Members will agree that my speech has been quite collaborative so far, but I take issue with some of them on this issue. Conservative Members have pointed out that corporation tax has been reduced, yet the overall yield—the amount that can be put into public services—has increased. For whatever reason, the Opposition want to increase corporation taxes, which would reduce the amount of money available for public services. That is of course illogical.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Huw Merriman]

I will of course give way to a man who is anything but illogical.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has he not once again powerfully shown the benefits of the Laffer curve, which demonstrates that lower rates lead to more tax revenue?

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of the Laffer curve, a term I have not heard since I was doing A-levels at Aylesbury College, where I was studying economics. He is absolutely right.

That brings me to another point about the Opposition. As well as supporting the Bill, it is important to support its aims, which are to increase business, to increase turnover and to increase the amount of money that we can put into public services. I am reminded of a recent visit to Bexhill business park, where the Government are creating funds for a new road. In return, it is hoped that investment will be generated for new businesses to set up there. It is interesting that many businesses from across Europe are looking to set up their headquarters in that business park. At a time when business confidence is perhaps a little uncertain owing to our position with regard to the European Union, it is absolutely essential to ensure that we have the lowest possible corporation tax base, so that those businesses can have every incentive to invest in this country, not just for the short term but for the long term. I am sure that they will be absolutely delighted that this Government have been returned to deliver just that.

In conclusion to my conclusion, I very much welcome the steps that this Government have taken to incentivise further broadband roll-out. I hope that they will help my constituents in Rother, which is, as I have said, in the bottom 10 districts—[Interruption.] I repeated that in case Scottish National party Members did not hear it the first time. I very much look forward to supporting the Bill as it spends its many days in Committee.

21:34

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Opposition welcome this Bill. It is vital that our homes and businesses have access to broadband and that broadband is faster, safer and more reliable than before, which is why we will be carefully scrutinising the Bill in Committee. As the Chancellor put it, this country was late to the 4G party, so we should do all we can to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of 5G communications and has full-fibre broadband to support it.

There was some doubt that this Bill would appear. The policy was originally announced in the Chancellor’s 2016 autumn statement and was due to be implemented as part of the Local Government Finance Bill, but it was then scuppered by the general election—like a lot of things. It was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, and there was some industry nervousness that it had been abandoned, but here we are in early July with a stand-alone Bill and I am glad that we are.

As we have heard, the Bill has a simple premise—at least I thought it was simple before I attended the start of this debate five hours ago. It will encourage firms to install new optical fibre by providing 100% business rates relief backdated to last April for a minimum period of five years. We understand that it will cost the Exchequer around £65 million by 2022. That is sure to be welcome news to the UK’s broadband companies, many of whom wrote to the Chancellor last February to complain that the current business rates regime is not fit for purpose and discourages inward investment in upgrades.

This legislation meets some of those concerns. The fact is that those business leaders were really talking about the whole business rates regime. This Bill deals with just one aspect when we actually need to be talking about the whole system, which many hon. Members from across the House have agreed with. There are many other changes to the system that could help to support businesses, and we outlined some of them in our manifesto, including switching from RPI to CPI indexation, exempting new investment in plant and machinery and ensuring that businesses have access to a proper appeals process. I appreciate that this is a stand-alone bill dealing with digital infrastructure, but I fear that it is no more than a sticking plaster for our moribund business rates system when we really need a total rethink.

This is a framework Bill, so it is short on detail. Conditions of eligibility will be outlined in future regulations, for example, which is why we need to scrutinise the Bill carefully. I do wonder which firms will benefit. The relief is expected to boost the big data providers through, for example, Virgin Media’s £3 billion “project lightning” and BT’s Openreach subsidiary, but it is unclear whether smaller firms will benefit initially. What impact does the Minister expect the reform to have on smaller providers? It would be a great shame if this Bill was merely for big business. Would it help smaller firms if the Bill’s provisions could be applied retrospectively to capture work on full-fibre networks that has already taken place?

Like many hon. Members, I am worried about how the Bill will benefit Britain’s rural communities, who have not done quite so well out of the broadband revolution so far. Many areas of the country, including urban areas, have been dogged by poor connectivity. I could not get broadband speeds for the past seven years in my area, but we were connected just last week because the housing company that built my house did not allow it to be cabled. However, many customers still do not get the advertised speeds that they are paying for. If they want a broadband upgrade, they pay for it, but they do not always receive what is advertised, so I commend the Which? report on broadband speeds. We pay our water rates, but if the utility company merely gave us a trickle out of the tap, we would be quick to complain. Many Members have said that broadband is the next utility, so why is that not included?

Businesses have suffered from not having the proper access to markets and customers that they should have. The public have suffered from being cut off from internet sites and entertainment sources, and their children are doubly penalised because so much modern education relies on online resources.

Discussion of digital exclusion has been sadly lacking in this debate. Services are increasingly going online. In fact, jobcentres have recently closed as people are encouraged to apply online for all their benefits and council services, yet many people do not have access. In my constituency in the borough of Wigan, 99% of people have access to fast broadband, but only 74% of them have the skills to use it. The cuts in the adult education budget are particularly penalising those people by preventing them from joining the digital economy that we all enjoy.

As I said at the outset, we support the Bill, which is an important step towards securing better broadband connectivity and access, but it is about more than just access. The Bill can work only if it is part of a broader picture that, on the one hand, fully incentivises business to invest in the future and, on the other, ensures that everyone, not just a select few, benefits from the reforms. More than just this Bill, that means education to ensure that everyone has the skills to take advantage of this great step forward.

21:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

We have had an interesting and, at times, wide-ranging debate on this important Bill. It is good to see such interest from Government Back Benchers, but it is slightly disappointing not to hear one speech from an Opposition Back Bencher on such a critical issue across the country.

The improvement of connectivity in the digital age helps individuals in their workplaces and homes, and can transform public services and the economy. Improved connectivity will bring significant economic rewards, with research suggesting that increased broadband speeds alone could add £17 billion to UK output by 2024, which has been recognised by all Members who have spoken today. I thank the many colleagues who made such passionate contributions today, which show that we all recognise the importance of investing in our telecommunications infrastructure.

The Bill will ensure that we help to close the digital divide and get higher quality, more reliable and resilient connectivity to more households and businesses. The Bill makes the technical changes needed to introduce 100% business rates relief for five years for newly installed fibre infrastructure. The importance we place on that relief is shown by how quickly we have introduced the Bill in the Session.

The Chancellor announced at autumn statement 2016 that we would provide relief on new fibre with effect from 1 April 2017. It is therefore vital that we move quickly to reassure the sector that the relief will follow. Investment decisions have been made on the back of the Chancellor’s commitment, and it is right that we proceed with the Bill to give us the powers to deliver the promised relief.

The Bill introduces support that forms part of a wider £1 billion package of measures that the Government are putting in place to support investment in digital infrastructure, and it forms an important part of the Government’s digital strategy. As such, the Bill will help to maintain the UK’s current high ranking as an internet e-commerce economy, as well as providing significant coverage of quick, reliable broadband connections to homes across the country.

I want to mention some of the contributions made in this debate, starting with that of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). He welcomed the Bill and also made the economic case for it. I felt he acknowledged that this Government are investing in the technology of the future. He intimated that the measures in the Bill will favour larger providers, but let me reassure him that, on the contrary, the Bill actually helps the smaller providers and opens up competition. It puts those smaller providers on a more level playing field, and that view was reiterated in several contributions.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned business rate retention, and we are absolutely clear that we want local government to keep more of the taxes that it raises locally. That commitment was in our manifesto and we are looking to follow through on it.

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is an important point, which I have raised in points of order and through other mechanisms in the past week or so. Will the Minister clarify that it is still the Government’s intention to proceed with the measures that were in the Local Government Finance Bill relating to the local retention of business rates, on the same timetable set out, with the changes to the revenue support grant?

[Mr Jones]

As I said to the hon. Gentleman in my response to his comments, this Government are absolutely committed to allowing local government to keep more of the taxes it raises locally. That was in our manifesto. He made a very important point, not just then, but during his contribution, about local government wanting certainty, but he was using a little faux rage, given that during the time his party was in government, local government had no more than one year of certainty on how it would be funded. Local government currently has a four-year settlement and therefore greater certainty. That said, we are well aware that in the last year of that settlement we need to provide certainty to local government, and it is our intention to do just that.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned more regular revaluations. I can—

[Andrew Gwynne]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I am not going to give way; I am going to make some progress. On regular revaluations, I just want to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to the aim of delivering more frequent revaluations. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) also made the important point about the detail of the measures in the Bill. As she knows, this is a framework and we are going to introduce further regulations to implement the Bill. I can assure her that those regulations will be put forward before the Committee stage, so that hon. Members can scrutinise them during the passage of the Bill.

[Andrew Gwynne]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have stood at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions in the past week or so to discuss this important issue; I have asked you how we can get a statement from the Secretary of State or his Ministers. The last time, the Secretary of State did say that we could raise this in a debate. I have asked the question and we have still not got answers. How do we get that certainty for local government?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if he does not at first succeed, he must try, try again. I am sure that is something his mother taught him when he was at school—when he was a young boy growing up. What I would say to him is, “Persist. Go to the Table Office. Think of the opportunities for different types of questions and, as we approach the summer recess, the relative urgency or emergency of what he seeks.”

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Let me move on to contributions made by other right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) showed his significant knowledge in this area. He welcomed the Bill and, given that significant knowledge, it was good to see him confirm that he thought the Bill would help to incentivise the smaller providers and increase competition in the sector, a point reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage also mentioned the impact the Bill would have on our mobile infrastructure and 5G, as well as the need to look at the planning system to ensure that we have the mobile infrastructure we need. I am sure he will be aware that provisions were introduced last November as part of the Digital Economy Act 2017 to speed up the planning process for telecom infrastructure.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) welcomed the framework for England and Wales. As he acknowledged, the Bill’s framework will allow the devolved Government to take up—or not, as the case may be—the measures. He was right to point out that funding will be provided for Wales through Barnett consequentials.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made an important point about the potential loss of income for local authorities during the Bill’s implementation. I can reassure him that if a network is on the local rating list, compensation for local government will be provided via a grant to cover the particular local authority’s share of the cost of providing the business rate relief.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire welcomed the Bill, which I understand fulfils a wish he had during the passage of the 2017 Act. He seemed extremely pleased that the Government have taken up the suggestion to provide this business rate relief.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) discussed the Bill’s importance in the context of social inclusion and the tackling of loneliness. She referred to rural small businesses that would benefit from the delivery of fibre broadband to their communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) recognised that the five-year rate relief period would provide a significant incentive to fibre broadband. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), she made the perceptive comment that this type of fibre broadband is becoming as important a part of the nation’s infrastructure as our road and rail network.

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) made an important contribution. He has campaigned tirelessly on this issue and talked about the benefit for the Government, with our investment being returned many times over because of the increased economic activity that will be created.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) talked about the importance of having fibre connectivity on new housing estates, citing Chasewater Grange. She also mentioned the opportunity that the fibre roll-out could provide to new industrial developments, and did not forgo the opportunity to mention the Rugeley B power station site, which is extremely important to her and her constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire welcomed the Bill and mentioned how, in rural areas such as his, its provisions could well assist with tech jobs that hitherto may not have been deliverable in rural areas.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

The Minister mentions rural areas; could he reference my constituency, Wealden? Broadband is imperative there, not only for the farmers who need to log their files and the teachers who need to do their Ofsted reports, but for the many business throughout the constituency’s three towns, Uckfield, Crowborough and Hailsham. We need connectivity in rural areas, and I hope the Minister can comment on that.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I concur with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made the same comments in regard to how these types of measures will help those in her constituency engaged in the agricultural industry and farming.

In conclusion, this Bill will help businesses and households with their broadband and support the economy. It is only one of several measures—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the Minister is very flattered. The House cannot wait to hear more of the oratory.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is one of several measures that we are taking on both broadband and business rates and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-domestic Rates) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; the Schedule; Clauses 5 and 6; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill.

Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(5) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(6) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-domestic Rates) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If, inexplicably, some Members do not wish to hear the debate on the future of the King George Hospital in Ilford, I hope that they will leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that we can hear the oration from the constituency Member of Parliament, and his neighbour, to whom the matter is of great importance.

King George Hospital, Ilford

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

21:59

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be called before 10 o’clock. I wish to begin by saying that, earlier this evening, I was at a celebration function organised by the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust celebrating the fact that, in March, after three years, it came out of special measures. That event was a very good occasion, because it enabled me to get even more up-to-date information before this debate. The trust has published 10 tips on how to climb out of special measures. I am sure that other NHS trusts will find that valuable. It is has also published the booklet “The Only Way is Up”, which is original, and it details the strenuous efforts made by all the staff and the management and various people with whom they were engaged in order to achieve that great progress.

I must say that, in my 25 years in this House, I have often had to bring to the attention of the House and the Government problems in the NHS in my area. It is not the first time that I have talked about the future of King George Hospital. Although the hospital, which is one of the two—with Queen’s Hospital, Romford—in our trust, is now improving and is under the best management that it has had in 25 years, there are still clouds on the horizon. First, there is, inexplicably, a delay in an announcement about the future of the North East London NHS Treatment Centre where I understand there is some difference of opinion between local clinical commissioning groups. I must declare an interest here: I had an operation on my nose in that facility a few years ago and found it to be very good. There is a very strong argument that that facility could be brought in-house within the NHS, and no longer provided by Care UK. That would allow greater flexibility onsite for longer planning of what might happen at King George Hospital.

Secondly—I referred to clouds on the horizon—there is the ongoing social care crisis, which has impacted very much in my local authority and neighbouring local authorities, linked to the 40% cuts in funding for Redbridge local authority, an ageing population on the one hand and—

22:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

[Mike Gapes]

The ongoing social care crisis poses major difficulties. We all know that private care homes are struggling and that there is an issue of quality. It seems to me that one advantage of the King George Hospital site is that it is co-located next door to the facilities of the North East London NHS Foundation Trust’s Goodmayes Hospital and various other facilities that provide support for people with learning difficulties and people with acute, severe and less severe mental health problems. It would seem logical, if we are to have joined-up NHS treatment, to have alongside a hospital facilities for those who need short-term, temporary or longer-term care in transition to or from the NHS facilities next door. The site is big enough to do that and, with imagination, could be a model to be followed.

We also have a third cloud on the horizon, which is the north-east London draft sustainability and transformation plan. The Minister will recall that he and I had a very useful meeting in February, along with his then colleague, Mr David Mowat. We had a useful discussion about the implications of the huge deficit in north-east London—£586 million—the potential huge cuts in the budget over the next four years, and the implications they might have. I raised the issue in detail in a debate on 16 December 2016 and that was why I had the meeting with Ministers.

I am very concerned that the funding gap, even if we have predicted regular savings of about £220 million or £240 million in the NHS, would still be £336 million by 2021. One of the most worrying points about the plan—I understand it is still a draft and has not been signed off—is that I went to a meeting last week when the people involved in the organisation considering the plan were discussing it and senior figures in the London NHS referred to it, saying, “You have to work within the basis of the plan.” It has not been signed off or approved, but the people in the NHS health economy in London are thinking ahead as though it will be.

The plan points out that the population of the north-east London boroughs will increase by 18% over the next 15 years, equivalent to a new city. Normally that level of population increase would require a new hospital, but there is no provision, no funding and no expectation of a new hospital. Instead, the proposal is to downgrade King George Hospital in my constituency and take away its accident and emergency department. That is still in the plan, and it is not a new proposal. In fact, I have been campaigning to save the A&E in my constituency for more than 10 years. But the formal decision was taken by the former Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, only in 2011. That decision, which was linked at the time to a suggestion of closing maternity services at King George Hospital, provided that those two things would happen in around two years. That was in October 2011.

The reality is that maternity services went to Queen’s Hospital in early 2013—I do not question that there have been improvements—but the A&E could not close as there was no capacity at other hospitals in the region. In addition, it was quite clear that it required huge capital investment, which was not forthcoming. The decision was made in 2011, but in 2013 there was no action and the issue was deferred. The trust then went into special measures three years ago because of a variety of issues, which I have already mentioned.

As the trust comes out of special measures, the question becomes whether it will go ahead with the plans to close the A&E. Practically, it is impossible for that closure to happen soon, but the sustainability and transformation plan still states that the intention is to close the A&E in 2019. The original suggestion was that it would stop the 24-hour service, getting rid of the overnight A&E from September this year. That plan was dropped in January, and I welcome that, but the reality is that it is still in the plan and is still proposed. That cloud still hangs over the trust and all its excellent staff, who have done so much to bring our hospital out of special measures.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my capacity as a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Redbridge, I currently chair a cross-party working group on the future of A&E provision in north-east London. One frustrating thing is that all the local health leads in the area are working to a decision made by a previous Secretary of State. That ministerial decision still stands and the leads have to work towards it. They do not believe that is achievable or clinically sound. Yet, they point to the Secretary of State when pressed to abandon the plans. I hope that the Minister might be able to reverse that ministerial decision and remove the sword of Damocles from our A&E department.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful for that intervention as it saves me from making the same point. During the election campaign, the Secretary of State went to my hon. Friend’s constituency for a private Conservative party function. He was asked by the local paper, the Ilford Recorder, about the plans to close the A&E at King George Hospital. He said that there were no plans to close it in the “foreseeable future”. Now, I do not know how big the crystal ball is. I do not know what kind of telescope the Secretary of State has and which end he is looking through. The fact is that “foreseeable” does not necessarily mean that the A&E will not close in 2019. If it is not going to close in the near future or even in the medium term, why not lift the cloud of uncertainty over the staff and over the planning process? Then we could have a serious look at the draft sustainability and transformation plan for north-east London, which is partly predicated on the closure of A&E at King George Hospital.

In January, the trust wrote a letter saying:

“It is our intention to make the changes by 2019 but please be assured nothing will happen until we are fully satisfied all the necessary resources are in place, including the additional capacity at the neighbouring hospitals, and we have made sure it is safe for our patients. In the meantime, the existing A&E facilities at King George will continue to operate as now.”

The reality is that there is no additional resource in terms of the capital that would be required to provide the beds for 400 patients at King George overall. We face a very uncertain future. If the A&E closed, where would those patients go? There would be a need for capital investment at Queen’s and for big capital investment at Whipps Cross. That would take time and resources, at a time when NHS budgets are seriously pressed. And we still have that huge deficit in our regional health economy.

Why not take that issue off the agenda? Last month, my hon. Friend and I jointly wrote a letter with the leader of Redbridge Council, Councillor Jas Athwal, to the Secretary of State. We requested that he formally reverse the decision taken by his predecessor, to allow certainty and to allow more sensible planning.

Last week, one of our health campaigners, Andy Walker, who put in various questions and freedom of information requests—he is a very persistent campaigner—received a response from the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust, commenting on this issue. It used the same formulation:

“We have been very clear that no changes will be made until we have the relevant assurances that it is safe to do so and this remains the case.”

That formulation has been used for several years; it is like a stuck record. It is not safe to make the changes. Why not have a new, imaginative approach that says, “Let’s look at social care. Let’s look at the potential for developing the site. Let’s look at collaboration between the mental health services of the North East London NHS Foundation Trust. Let’s look at providing particular forms of housing and support.” This area could be a model for a new way forward.

I know from discussions I have had that people in various NHS organisations are working on such possibilities, but they cannot go any further than possible explorations while this cloud—the threat to close the A&E—still lies on the table. If the Secretary of State would take it off the table, we could have some serious discussions about improvements to health facilities. We could deal with not just the A&E but other issues.

On the King George site at the moment, we also have an urgent care centre. It recently had a Care Quality Commission inspection and was rated as “requires improvement”. That is an indication, again, of the problems we face. I have a lot of inadequate GP facilities in my constituency; I have lots of problems with people coming to me complaining that they cannot get through. Primary care in north-east London faces a crisis of retention, recruitment and standards of services. If we could make imaginative use of the facilities at the King George Hospital site, we could make a big difference to primary care, as well as to the acute services and the mental health services next door.

My plea to the Minister and the Government is this: take the closure of the A&E off the table, and let us then work collaboratively to improve the NHS in north-east London and in my constituency.

22:14

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker, and to contribute to another debate introduced by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). I congratulate him on his tenacity in keeping the subject of King George Hospital at the forefront of Health Ministers’ minds in recent years, not least during my tenure. As he rightly said, he and I had a meeting in February with my former colleague, David Mowat, to discuss many of the issues that he has raised this evening. I therefore hope that he will forgive me if he has heard some of my remarks before. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on joining us. He obviously has experience of these matters as well, given his role in the local council.

I join the hon. Member for Ilford South in paying tribute to the achievement of all the staff and management involved at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust in exiting special measures after what has undoubtedly been a long journey for them over the past three years. I was very pleased that they were able to exit special measures in March of this year. That is a huge tribute to everyone involved in ensuring that they were focused on the areas where the CQC had identified what was not best practice. They have focused on improving the deficiencies, and the fact that they were awarded an “improved” rating enabled us to take the decision we did. I also join him in congratulating the quality of management now substantively in place within the trust, at least one of whose members has himself been a beneficiary of treatment locally; I think it was for a different complaint from the one that the hon. Gentleman was treated for in the intermediate treatment centre. That was a very substantial experience, and all credit to that member of the executive team.

The hon. Gentleman touched on a couple of clouds, as he described them. The first was the intermediate treatment centre, which conducts elective and planned procedures provided by an independent provider, Care UK. As he will appreciate—in fact, this took place under the previous Labour Government, when the independent sector provided capacity to support the NHS in a number of areas—we have had a policy of allowing independent providers to be commissioned to undertake care, and it is a matter for the local commissioners in his area to do so; it is not for me to tell them who are the best providers to be able to undertake care. I am very pleased that he was a beneficiary of some of that care. It will be up to the commissioners, working with the NHS, to decide who is best to provide services in his area as they come up for renewal from time to time.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the social care challenge that exists in north-east London, as it does in many other parts of the country. That is why we decided in the Budget in March this year to inject an additional £1 billion into the adult social care budgets of local authorities across the country and a further £1 billion in the next financial year. Moreover, last week, we announced some measures to scrutinise the performance of local authorities in managing those budgets—in particular, so that they contribute to the patient flow challenge, which we experience in many of our hospitals, including the King George: patients occupying hospital beds in acute settings who have no medical reason to continue to be there, because of the challenge of providing placements in the community. It is important that there is closer integration with social care through the local authorities, but also, as he rightly identifies, through other NHS providers, particularly if they are co-located on the site. He mentioned what he describes as an opportunity for the North-East London NHS Foundation Trust to work alongside Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust to try to smooth the passage and find other opportunities in the community for more appropriate flow. That is very interesting and I hope he is engaging with the leadership of the sustainability and transformation plan and proposing imaginative ideas, in the hope that they will be assessed appropriately when consideration is given to the provision of the future pattern of healthcare in his area.

The hon. Gentleman focused mostly on the challenge to A&E at King George. I will spend most of the rest of my remarks addressing his concerns as best I can. He will appreciate that, across the country, the NHS is coming together, through the STPs published at the end of last year, to identify the right pattern of care across an individual NHS footprint. North-east London has come together with the STP for that area. Our view is that that is the right way to encourage a more holistic approach to the future provision of NHS services. It needs to be led by clinicians and those responsible for managing NHS organisations, and it needs to work in a collaborative and perhaps more open way than it has in the past with local authorities, which have a part to play, as I have said, in facilitating the passage beyond hospital and back into the community.

We are absolutely clear that any significant service change that arises out of the implementation of STPs, if they get to that stage, must be subject to full public consultation, and proposals must meet the Government’s four reconfiguration tests, which are support from clinical commissioners, clarity on the clinical evidence base, robust patient and public engagement, and support for patient choice. Additional NHS guidance means that proposed service reconfigurations should be tested for their impact on overall bed numbers in the area, which the hon. Gentleman has identified appears to be absent from the STP at present. I urge him to continue to challenge that in his area.

[Wes Streeting]

Will the Minister clarify whether he expects the STP process to now publicly consult on any future proposal to close the A&E at King George Hospital? Furthermore, were the STP to recommend to Ministers that the A&E should remain, will they heed that advice and agree that the STP process should not be constrained by the decision made in 2011by the then Secretary of State?

[Mr Dunne]

I am going to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I am not in a position to second guess the conclusions of the STP discussions and recommendations. It is appropriate for them to take into account clinical decisions made in the recent past, one of which is the decision about the A&E at King George. It is up to the STP management to decide whether to take that forward as the STP evolves. It is right that the STP management looks at health provision in the round. It will be responsible for delivering healthcare to local residents and it needs to take into account all the information sources available to it. I do not think it is right to say that it necessarily has to re-consult on certain issues. It needs to form a view on the right configuration and then use its available data sources and go through the processes.

I will try to explain to the hon. Gentleman the process that, as I understand it, is now under way in his area. Both hon. Gentlemen are right to say that, in 2011, on advice from the independent reconfiguration panel, which approved the proposal, the then Secretary of State took the decision that the north-east London scheme should be allowed to proceed. The Secretary of State made it clear at the time—it has since been repeated in response to questions about the health authorities in the area—that no changes were to take place until it was clinically safe to do so. I believe that remarks that the Secretary of State might have made when visiting the area recently must be considered in that context.

There have been a number of changes since the decision was made, and there are four elements to the process. First, the STP team is reviewing and revalidating the modelling used back in 2010 to ensure that the proposals that were made remain appropriate, as one would expect the team to do. Secondly, the governing members of the CCG board, the trust board and the STP board will need to agree the business case that arises from the STP recommendations. Thirdly, if that is achieved, NHS England and NHS Improvement will be required to approve the business case. Finally, it is envisaged that a clinically led gateway assurance team—an NHS construct —will manage a series of gateway reviews at different stages of the process from planning to implementation, as the project proceeds, to assure system readiness and patient safety at every step of the way, should the decisions necessary to get there be taken in the intervening period.

[Mike Gapes]

Does the Minister think that the whole process could be completed by 2019?

[Mr Dunne]

I will have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because it is not for me to prejudge how long the process would take. In all honesty, I think it is most unlikely that it would be completed in less than two years. It is conceivable that it would be concluded by the end of 2019, but a two-year process is likely to be required as a minimum.

In the meantime, CQC visits and reports will continue on a routine basis. Now that the trust is out of special measures, those visits will be somewhat less frequent than they were while the trust was in special measures. Any information coming out of that process will inform decisions taken by the trust and the STP area.

In my final comments, I want to reassure the hon. Gentlemen and their constituents that the proposals include a new urgent care centre at King George Hospital to provide emergency support to local residents for the majority of present A&E attendances. Blue-light trauma and emergency cases requiring full support from emergency medical teams would be taken to other hospitals in the area, but the majority of cases currently treated at King George would continue to be treated there. The new urgent care centre would benefit from several improvements, including more space and access for diagnosis, X-ray, blood tests and so on. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentlemen some reassurance that the facilities that remained at King George would continue to provide the majority of their constituents with the care that they would need in an emergency.

[Wes Streeting]

Is the Minister saying that the STP process should not be constrained by the 2011 decision if those in charge of the process think that that was the wrong decision?

[Mr Dunne]

The process should be informed by the decisions taken in 2010, but it will be up to today’s STP leadership to decide what to do.

Question put and agreed to.

22:29

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 10th July 2017 Written Statements

Monday 10 July 2017

Environmental Council: June

Monday 10th July 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Claire Perry)]

I attended the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 19 June along with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

I wish to update the House on the matters discussed.

The Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation (LULUCF)

The Maltese presidency introduced an exchange of views on these two regulations which, alongside the EU emissions trading system, will implement the EU’s 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris agreement. On the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), views were sought on the idea of a safety reserve put forward by the presidency to address concerns from some member states on the starting point for the 2021-2030 emissions trajectory. On the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) regulation, views were sought on how to account for forest reference levels. Member state views remain divided on the best way to balance fairness, environmental integrity and cost efficiency across the dossiers. However, delegations reiterated the importance of making progress in order to reach agreement at October’s Environment Council. This in turn would help reinforce EU climate leadership ahead of the next UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the parties in November.

On both dossiers, the UK spoke in support of the Commission’s original proposals, highlighting the importance of environmental integrity and appropriate flexibility, but recognised the concerns of other member states and indicated a willingness to work constructively with others to reach an agreement. On the ESR, the UK noted some concerns with the current design of the proposed safety reserve, but was open to it in principle. On LULUCF, we spoke alongside several other member states in expressing a preference for forest reference levels to be based on historic policies, to help ensure biomass emissions are fully reflected in LULUCF accounting.

US decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement

Environment Ministers debated the United States’ announcement of its intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement, noting that the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) had adopted Council conclusions on the same subject earlier in the day. There was full support of the FAC position, with many member states, including the UK expressing deep regret at the US decision and reaffirming that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated. While underscoring that the Paris agreement was irreversible, the UK also noted that the EU should leave the door open for the US to review its decision.

The Netherlands called on member states to provide funding to make up the shortfall in funding to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UK, along with other member states, responded positively towards this suggestion.

EU Action Plan for Nature, People and the Economy

Council adopted Council conclusions on the Action Plan, which seeks to improve the practical implementation of the habitats and birds directive and boost their contribution towards reaching the EU’s biodiversity targets for 2020.

AOB items

AOB—waste package—state of play

The presidency updated Council on the waste (circular economy) package. Many member states, UK included, noted that further discussion on the file would be welcome, particularly on the achievability of targets across all member states. The UK highlighted the variance of current municipal recycling rates across England, the challenge faced in urban areas and recognised the success in Wales.

AOB—urban adaptation plans for cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants in Poland—Information

The Polish delegation presented information on the climate implications of their urban adaptation plans.

AOB—Member state ratification of the Kigali amendment to the Montreal protocol—information

The Commission presented information on the Kigali amendment to the Montreal protocol.

AOB—Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conferences of the Parties—information

The presidency and the Commission together updated the Council on the outcomes of the international meeting on the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.

AOB—Role of women in mountain regions—information

The Austrian delegation presented information on the role of women in mountain regions.

AOB—UN oceans conference—information

The Swedish delegation presented information on the outcome of the UN oceans conference.

AOB—11th Nano-authorities dialogue—information

The Luxembourg, Austrian and German delegations together presented information on the recommendations adopted at the 11th Nano-authorities dialogue.

AOB—Estonian presidency work programme—information

The incoming Estonian presidency set out the Council work programme for the next six months.

[HCWS33]

Teacher Update

Monday 10th July 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)]

The 27th report of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) is being published today. Its recommendations cover the remit that I issued in October 2016. The report contains recommendations on the pay award for teachers that is due to be implemented from September 2017, which are consistent with the Government’s 1% public sector pay policy. Copies of the STRB’s 27^th report are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the House, and online at www.gov.uk.

The STRB has recommended an uplift of 1 % to the minima and maxima of all pay ranges and allowances in the national pay framework, other than the minimum and maximum of the main pay range, to which they have recommended a 2% uplift. Following previous reforms, schools already have significant flexibility, within the pay ranges, to set pay for individual teachers, taking account of performance and retention. Nevertheless, those at the bottom of the main pay scale will receive an automatic 2% increase, a small proportion of teachers. As such it is consistent with the Government’s public sector 1 % pay policy.

A full list of the recommendations is attached as an annex.

My officials will write to all of the statutory consultees of the STRB to invite them to contribute to a consultation on my acceptance of these recommendations and on a revised “School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions” document and pay order. The consultation will last for three weeks.

I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations and, subject to the views of consultees, I intend to accept all the key recommendations.

My detailed response contains further information on these matters.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-07-10/HCWS34/.

[HCWS34]

House of Lords

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Monday 10 July 2017

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Oaths and Affirmations

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

14:36

Lord Mitchell and Lord Christopher took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Death of a Former Member: Lord Sandberg

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:37

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, on 2 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

Lord Speaker’s Statement

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

14:38

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words about security. As I informed the House two weeks ago, I have now received the final report from Sir Jon Murphy, who was commissioned to carry out an independent review examining the security of the parliamentary estate. The report will be considered carefully and appropriate action will be taken.

There is one recommendation, however, which can be addressed immediately. It concerns the wearing of security passes. Security passes identify those who have a legitimate reason to be on the parliamentary estate. An individual on the parliamentary estate failing to display a security pass should raise questions. A security review in 2004 recommended that security passes be worn at all times by everyone. Regrettably, there is still a small but significant number of Members and staff from both Houses who do not wear their passes while on the estate. The review makes it clear that efforts to secure the perimeter of the parliamentary estate will be undermined if individuals fail to take security seriously.

Further action will be taken in the autumn when the Parliamentary Security Department will begin a process of replacing all security passes. The new passes will have additional security features: they will be double-sided for maximum visibility and will have a distinctive hologram to establish authenticity.

I encourage everyone to wear their pass at all times when on the estate and to remove their pass when leaving the estate. Individuals failing to display a pass are liable to be challenged. I would be most grateful for the co-operation of all noble Lords.

Data Ethics Commission

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:39

Asked by

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to set up a Data Ethics Commission, as set out in their 2017 manifesto.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my digital interests as set out in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, data governance and the effective and ethical use of data are vital for the future of our economy and our society. The Government are committed to creating a sound ethical framework in the UK that will give people confidence in how their data are being handled and used. We are working closely with industry, civil society groups and academia to examine how we can best achieve this.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. It is encouraging to hear his enthusiasm, but the scale and scope of data usage is growing fast. Just in the past couple of weeks, parents have been scrambling to work out how to protect their children’s location from Snap Map, and we have heard that Vodafone has been using robots to screen candidates in advance of interviews. Just because you can does not mean that you automatically should. The technology world will not wait for us. Will my noble friend say when a commission will be set up?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this because we agree that these issues are vital. It is critical that we get the rules right so that we can give the public confidence in how their data are being used. I completely agree with her that things are moving very fast. I can be more specific about the timing when we have consulted various groups that will be set up or have been set up, and when we have looked at the reports, particularly the Royal Society and British Academy report. When we have considered those reports we can be more specific, but we aim to update our thinking later in the year.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, the necessity of an ethics component in a structural engineering degree is well known: you cannot become one unless you have completed an ethnical component to the course. Would the Minister consider the other points at which we could insert an ethics course in our computer science degrees or other points of learning?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That is a very good idea. This affects many areas of work and our society: data are part of everything. Many degrees, not just the ones the noble Baroness mentioned, should consider the ethical issues surrounding this. A careful consideration of ethics is part of any good education.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, Matt Hancock from the other place said that, fundamentally, intelligent systems will take off only if people trust them and how they are regulated. I understand and totally agree with the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we must have a clear timetable for this commission, but what steps are the Government going to take to properly engage with the public to ensure that we gain their trust?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

We are going to liaise with civil society groups, as I have said, and academia. The Nuffield Foundation, for example, is going to develop plans in partnership with the Royal Society, the British Academy, the Royal Statistical Society and the Alan Turing Institute to establish an independent convention on data ethics. This is something we support and will contribute to, and I think the public will be able to learn from such conventions. As I say, we will update our thinking later in the year.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will this commission cover not only ethics but the use and application of data, for example through machine learning and development of algorithms? Can the Minister also explain how this commission will interrelate with the new data protection regulations starting in 2018 and the digital charter announced in the Queen’s Speech?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The data protection Bill, which will come before Parliament in the autumn, is to give effect to the general data protection regulations and the law enforcement directive. It will obviously include things to do with privacy, but data ethics covers many other things, such as artificial intelligence, which the noble Baroness mentioned. So it is not specifically a regulatory thing, although regulation may come out of it. It is to consider the new issues that come with this new technology.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, artificial intelligence has the potential to significantly empower us as humans, but comes with the worries that have been expressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned parents. What plans do the Government have to engage children in this discussion about their data and their rights to the privacy of that data?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That is of course important, and the data protection Bill will include measures to protect children and to allow data which is held by social media companies, for example, to be deleted. As for engaging children in considering these ethical issues, that is something that the data commission can consider but, as I said, we have not yet been specific about the structure, function and remit of the commission.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the ethics and governance council for UK Biobank. Does the Minister agree that the potential value in health of the use of big data—in the development of new medicines and other fields—is enormous? In view of that, will he ensure that the interests of medical research are included in the commission’s terms of reference, given that it is essential that the public have trust in the systems governing the use of their information?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. One issue that the commission can consider is whether, as data increases exponentially and individuals give data which can be used by data-mining companies and others, what is considered private data, even if it is anonymised, can be used for the greater good. We have to consider exactly such things. The Royal Free Hospital, for example, was in trouble under the Data Protection Act for allowing data, although anonymised, to be used by another company. We have to consider such things because a tremendous amount of benefit can be obtained for the general public from that data.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, much of this data is held outside the UK. In fact, we are not sure where quite a lot of it is held. How will we be able to regulate people when we do not know where they are?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The best way is to get international agreement. It was discussed—

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

In the EU.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I think it has been discussed in many multinational organisations—including the EU, I completely agree. One point of the data protection Bill is to try to get equivalence in data flow across borders after Brexit, but the point that the noble Lord makes is right: it is not always easy but we have to lead the way to show that an ethical regime is the way forward.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, are all non-classified reports or reports back compiled by officials—for example, reports back on trade missions around the world—in the public domain?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not know the answer to that, but I am sure that not every report is in the public domain.

Railways: Northern England

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to connecting communities and economies in the north of England by the re-opening of railway lines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are investing billions of pounds across the north of England in order better to connect communities and build the northern powerhouse. In the spirit of devolution, it is of course for local enterprise partnerships and local transport authorities to decide whether the reopening of a railway line is the best way to address the economic needs of their area and to secure appropriate funding, including that made available by the Government.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, there are ambitious plans for substantial investment in new high-speed railway lines in the north of England, but the Minister will be aware that many towns have been missed off the network. There are missing links that need to be put back in to provide an ordinary service in some of those towns—none more so than the Colne-Skipton link, which can provide not only a local service of benefit to local people in the region but a new strategic east-west route between the west coast and the east coast, particularly for freight. There has been a 20-year campaign for this, with half-promises from government at all levels. Will the Government step in and put some oomph behind this proposal?

[Lord Callanan]

I can see that that position has widespread support. First, I thank the noble Lord for his interest and considerable advocacy on this subject. We also pay tribute to the work of the Skipton-East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership—that well-known group—in raising the profile on the case for reopening this line. Local partners share a desire to improve connectivity across the Pennines. Their recent connectivity report suggested that there may be economic benefits in doing so, and they will be actively involved in the Transport for the North corridor study to consider potential solutions. Through growth deals, we have provided the north of England with almost £3.5 billion of local growth funding, which is supporting local authorities and LEPs to deliver more than 150 local transport schemes.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the North York Moors railway line, of which I have the privilege to be honorary president. The fact that the line was able to access the national rail line to Whitby has opened up tourism, and the number of people visiting the railway has risen phenomenally. Will my noble friend share this with his ministerial colleagues to look favourably on Heritage Lottery Fund grant applications for such lines in the future?

[Lord Callanan]

I am sure there is considerable benefit to the North Yorkshire communities in the reopening and additional service provision on these lines, and I am happy to support my noble friend’s assertion.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware that one of the key facets of the northern powerhouse is rail connectivity. Two years ago, plans were announced by the Government for the electrification of the line from Manchester to Leeds. Reports over the weekend have suggested that those plans have been shelved. Is that correct?

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, we will be announcing our proposals for that line in due course, but let me just say that we are investing more than £1 billion in the great north rail project, which is transforming rail travel for passengers across the north up to 2019 as part of our over £13 billion investment in rail infrastructure.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, opening lines is one thing; opening stations on lines that are already open ought to be considerably easier. There was the line between Halifax and Huddersfield reopening in 2000. A railway station was built in Brighouse, and we were promised one for Elland, but we are still waiting—17 years later. Once the business case has really been made, and expectations have been created, how long does the Minister think that folk should have to wait for this station?

[Lord Callanan]

Clearly, the provision of additional stations on important local lines is vital, but I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the detailed business case for that particular station.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, no doubt the Minister has a list of all the potential local railways, so may I ask him to look at the case for the Penrith to Keswick line? It is one of the examples of where Beeching vandalised this country, so let us put that right.

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord is right: I do have an extensive list. However, I do not see that one on it, but I will write to him on that particular case.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my railway interests in the register. The Minister will be struck by the support that exists all over the House for the reopening of rural railway lines. Can I draw his attention to the report by the Association of Train Operating Companies in 2009, which looked at communities with more than 15,000 inhabitants, and at the potential for reopening services where they used to exist? There were 14 lines of the highest priority where there was either an existing freight line or a disused line. No Government have yet acted on that report, so will the Minister now please have a look at it?

[Lord Callanan]

I will certainly have a look at the report, now that the noble Lord has drawn my attention to it.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is well aware of the general feeling in the country that HS2 is a waste of time. Can I urge him to review it urgently because, if common sense prevails and that silly scheme is scrapped, there will be plenty of money for all these very sensible schemes in the north?

[Lord Callanan]

I am, of course, aware of the noble Lord’s passionate opposition to HS2. However, I am afraid that on this one occasion I will have to disagree with him, because I think it is an excellent scheme and we will be going ahead with it.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

Will the Minister now answer the direct question of my noble friend Lord Clark about the reports in the press? Are they true or not?

[Lord Callanan]

No, they are not true. We are re-evaluating the scheme, but we will be going ahead with it and we will publish our proposals in detail on it in due course.

Education: Disability Financing

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:54

Asked by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the #CostingEquity report on disability responsive education financing, published by the International Disability and Development Consortium, which outlines the steps and resources necessary to deliver the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 on inclusive education.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the IDDC’s report. Disability has been underprioritised in the past and, as a result, insufficient global resources have been allocated to education. We recognise the challenge and are steadily taking steps to scale up our own response and encourage others to do more.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that Reply. The Minister will be aware that more than 32 million children with disabilities in low and middle-income countries are out of school and denied an education. That is why 40 NGO leaders have endorsed a joint call to action to invest in disability-inclusive education, in which they have agreed to make education for children with disabilities in developing countries a top priority and to urge donors to increase funding for inclusive education and make disability inclusiveness a necessary criterion for accessing funding for all education programmes and projects. Can the Minister assure the House—and from his Reply I am very hopeful that he can—that the UK Government will follow the same approach and support these recommendations?

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to give that assurance, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work on the steering group of this very valuable report. We are still digesting a lot of its conclusions—but, undoubtedly, the one that we should focus on is that 90% of children in the developing world with disabilities are not in school. Clearly, that is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to at least goal 4—and probably goals 8 and 10—of the sustainable development goals. It is something that we are committed to responding to, and I will be very happy to speak to the noble Lord afterwards to outline some of the thoughts that we have in this area about what we hope to bring forward in response to the report.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

In response to the report on disability from the International Development Committee three years ago, the Government adopted a disability framework. What progress is being made in evaluating the data to identify how many disabled children in particular are affected in countries where DfID has programmes and to what extent is DfID targeting them, as well as on employing disabled staff in the department to ensure that there is a real connection between the rights of disabled people and the need to serve their needs?

[Lord Bates]

One thing that was identified in the report to which we have just referred was the lack of data about what the need was and what the responses were. We have a disability framework in the department, which guides everything that we do across our aid strategy. We are looking at finding better practices for what is working; for example, we are working in Kenya and Uganda with Leonard Cheshire to try to find better examples of what is working on the ground to address this problem.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

Is the Minister looking at how many of these children are in institutional care and whether it is always appropriate for them to be so? Many of them could be better placed in foster or kinship care. Is that a matter that the Minister might look at?

[Lord Bates]

A number of excellent charities are working in this very area. It is certainly something that we are sympathetic to; disability has been one of the core criteria for UK Aid Direct, a new round of which has come in. We also have the Girls’ Education Challenge, which has educated some 46,000 girls with disabilities in schools. The next round of that project will increase the allocation still further to 15% of the total fund.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, promoting inclusive education is obviously a key priority for DfID. The International Development Committee of the other place recommended that DfID should spend at least 10% of its budget on that, but it is currently 8%. What steps is the Minister going to take to ensure that we reach that target so that we can deliver the promise referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Low?

[Lord Bates]

There is a significant financing gap in global education. The UK is one of the better ones—in fact, the report on page 26 highlights that DfID was ranked number one by donors for its disability education as a priority, and number 2 for its funding overall. The amount is currently at 8.5%, about £650 million; we also spend about £227 million through multilateral agencies, so I think we are doing better than most. But with the scale of the problem that has been identified, we cannot afford to be complacent and we will certainly keep that under review.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Minister a charity called Wheelchairs of Hope. Using old plastic chairs, the inventors have created strong and sturdy wheelchairs for the developing world at a cost of somewhere between $50 and $100 per chair. This has been a great thing for people in the developing world, especially for young children who would otherwise not be able to get to school. I suggest that the Minister has a good look at it. I hope that DfID might help these children get to school and give them a bit of mobility which they have not had before.

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to look at that. I also encourage the charity itself to see whether it would be eligible for the UK Aid Direct funding round which is in place at the moment, or the small charities challenge fund, which has just been launched.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, one noble Lord mentioned earlier the need for DfID to employ people with disabilities. This is extremely important: we need their talents and we need them as role models. What is DfID’s policy? Also, what is its policy towards other organisations to which it gives grants? It is extremely important that they, too, employ people with disabilities.

[Lord Bates]

Through the disability framework, we now ask a question about disability inclusion as part of all business cases. I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness with specific numbers. Our annual report was produced last week and the numbers are listed in it, as they should be. I am sure that there is more that could be done, but we can take a degree of pride from the report on what UK aid is doing for those with disabilities around the world.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, this is obviously work of great international importance. However, does the provision for our own children meet the criteria that we are recommending for international communities?

[Lord Bates]

The international standard that has been adopted by the UN recommends that between 4% and 6% of GDP should be spent on education. In the UK it is currently 5.6%. In many of the countries that we are helping most, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is 2.4% and 2.2% respectively, so there is a lot more that those countries can do themselves—and, of course, there is always a need to keep spending in this country under review to ensure that we continue to maintain our standards.

Anti-corruption Strategy

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

15:02

Asked by

[Lord McNally]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to update their anti-corruption strategy.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are working on a new anti-corruption strategy, which will be published in due course. They continue to take forward a wide range of anti-corruption measures, including those agreed at the London anti-corruption summit.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, it is over a year since the anti-corruption summit which promised that new strategy. Is the Minister aware that there are voices around which suggest that Brexit is an opportunity for Britain to hoist the Jolly Roger and buccaneer its way around the world with scant regard to things like bribery or money laundering? Is it not time that the Government sent out a clear message that we are a beacon of integrity in these matters by bringing this strategy forward, giving a vote of confidence in the Serious Fraud Office and finding a new anti-corruption champion to succeed the one who has now departed the other place? Those challenges would make us a beacon of integrity, rather than the other way.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. First, he is quite right: the deadline has been missed. We hoped to publish the updated strategy by December last year. There was some turbulence in Whitehall following the outcome of the referendum and then, in March, when the inter-ministerial group met to consider the draft strategy, there was a further discontinuity with the general election. However, a near-final draft of the document is being prepared and we hope to publish it shortly. There has been a series of anti-corruption champions: Hilary Benn, Jack Straw and Ken Clarke. Eric Pickles was the last but since the election Sir Eric is no longer a Member of Parliament. We hope to appoint a new champion in due course.

On the noble Lord’s second point about the Jolly Roger, I prefer the union jack. However, he is quite right: this country has a reputation for integrity and fairness throughout the world. That helps us win export orders and inward investment. The noble Lord may know that in a recent analysis of integrity, the UK was ranked joint 10th out of 176 on the Transparency International corruption perceptions index. He is quite right: we value our reputation and are determined to maintain and enhance it after Brexit.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have previously indicated to the House that they were attempting to meet a target by the end of June this year to have central registers of beneficial ownership opened in the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. I believe it is now July. Therefore, I would be very grateful if my noble friend updated us on the current position.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. It is indeed now July, and I am happy to tell him that good progress has been made with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. Most of the larger territories already had these central registers in place. I think that only two, or possibly three, have not met the deadline, and they are making good progress. Therefore, significant information is now available, almost real time, in this country for law enforcement and HMRC because of the central registers of beneficial ownership that the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies have now introduced following last year’s London summit.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Will the Government review their own actions bearing in mind that they have just given a £1 billion bung to the DUP? Does the Minister think he should put his own house in order first?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand that in another place, Nigel Dodds MP suggested that he might put in the public domain correspondence between Gordon Brown and the DUP following the 2010 election. I also remember the 1974 to 1979 Parliament, when the Callaghan Government limped from Division to Division, putting together a series of deals with individual parties and individual Members which involved significant expenditure of public money. The noble Lord may wonder where this train of argument may lead him.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Criminal Finances Bill, a great deal of concern was expressed around the House about the number of properties, particularly in central London, being acquired by anonymous foreign owners, often using corrupt proceeds of crime. Can the Minister update the House on what is happening with unexplained wealth orders and, indeed, with the proposed register of foreign owners of property here in London? It is time we kept the momentum going on this.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who played a significant role when the then Criminal Finances Bill was going through the House in ensuring that we had the unexplained wealth orders in the right shape. That legislation hit the statute book on 27 April. We are now preparing statutory guidance, subject to the affirmative procedure order, and introducing new court rules and training for officials so that we get the orders in good shape before they are introduced. We remain committed to a register of beneficial ownership of foreign companies that own or acquire property in this country. Good progress is being made. BEIS submitted a consultation document earlier this year, and it is now analysing the responses. I say to my noble friend that we are determined to honour the commitment to introduce such a register.

[Baroness Stern (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that four senior executives from Barclays Bank are facing criminal prosecution for wrongdoing that took place in the financial crisis of 2008, and that this is the first such prosecution. The director of the Serious Fraud Office, whom I hope the Minister will confirm will remain in his place, has repeatedly called for reform of UK law on criminal corporate liability to make it easier to prosecute private companies involved in wrongdoing. Could the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to reform the UK’s very weak laws on corporate liability, so that companies can be held to account for actions that facilitate money laundering of the proceeds of corruption?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I cannot give a substantive reply to the noble Baroness, but I would like to write to her. I think I am right in saying that recently, companies have been prosecuted. For example, I think that Rolls-Royce as a company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and, as a result, paid a penalty of over half a billion pounds—and that was for the company. I am cautious about saying anything more, because I understand that individuals are also under investigation by the SFO. I am afraid that I cannot comment on the question she raised about the personnel at the SFO, but I will make inquiries and write to her.

Opticians Act 1989 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:10

A Bill to make provision for the sale of adjustable focus spectacles.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Newby, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Digital Economy Act 2017 (Amendment) (Definition of Extreme Pornography) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:10

A Bill to amend the definition of extreme pornography in the Digital Economy Act 2017.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Howe of Idlicote, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Marriage Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:11

A Bill to make amendments to the Marriage Act 1949 to make provision for all religious marriages to be solemnized on the authority of a superintendent registrar.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Cox, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Right to Die at Home Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:11

A Bill to create a right to die at home.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Warner, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Learning Disabilities (Review of Services) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:12

A Bill to make provision for the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation reviewing the provision of comprehensive and integrated services for adults with learning disabilities.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Hollins, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Security in the UK

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:12

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That this House takes note of the current security situation in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, recent events mean that this debate to consider the security situation in the UK is especially timely. This year, on four dates over the course of three months, our country was attacked by terrorists, in Westminster, Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market, and Finsbury Park, with 36 dead and over 150 injured in these atrocious attacks. Terrorists mean to sow fear and division, but ours is a community of many faiths and many nationalities, and all have come together in the face of these senseless acts. If these attacks have shown us anything, it is that an attack on one part of our community is an attack on us all.

Our law enforcement agencies continue to tackle serious and organised crime and sexual exploitation of children. We have also seen over the last few months a number of high-profile cyber incidents, not least that which affected parliamentary systems.

During the course of this debate, I will focus on some of the most pressing domestic national security issues that impact on the security situation in the UK. I will reflect on recent events, but noble Lords will be aware that there is a wide range of issues with security that we could consider, from civil emergencies to public health.

Although this debate focuses on the security situation in the UK, we are clear that in an ever more interconnected world, our security depends on addressing issues overseas and online. We have seen this with the rise of terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq and Libya, in the way that cyber criminals have targeted systems across the globe, and in the way that criminals are exploiting vulnerable people to perpetrate organised immigration crime and modern slavery.

The threats we face are global. That means that strong alliances and partnerships across the globe are ever more important. A global Britain will continue to meet our NATO obligation to spend 2% of our GDP on defence; we will maintain the most significant security and military capability in Europe; and we will continue our investment in all the capabilities set out in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, remaining a world leader in cybersecurity and renewing our nuclear deterrent.

Our strong bilateral relationships with EU member states and countries across the globe help tackle threats of terrorism and serious organised crime. We will, in due course, be leaving the EU. It is in all our interests that we continue our deep co-operation with the EU and its member states to tackle these threats together. We seek a strong and close future relationship with the EU. Security and law enforcement co-operation with our EU and global allies remains of the utmost importance, and we will continue to invest in our close and effective relationships with international partners.

We must also continue to develop strong relationships with the private sector, including tech companies and the banking sector. The threat is not a challenge which government alone can address.

Keeping our people and interests safe is the first duty of government. The people who make up our security community work tirelessly on a daily basis—often, for obvious reasons, largely unseen by the public. The events of recent months serve to remind us all of the bravery and professionalism and, above all, of the incredible sacrifice made by those who work to keep us safe. However, the response by our communities to the terrorist attacks has illustrated that we all have a part to play, often by just going about our daily business. All have come together in the face of these senseless acts.

I begin by explaining the threat we see from terrorism. The current threat level from international terrorism is severe—an attack is highly likely. Daesh is currently the most significant terrorist threat globally and to the UK and our interests overseas. Its propaganda, including that of its affiliated branches, has inspired radical groups and individuals to plan and conduct attacks worldwide, and encouraged hundreds of people from European countries to travel to Syria and Iraq. This includes around 850 people of national security concern from the UK.

However, Daesh is not the only threat. Al-Qaeda’s ideology and organisation is a long-term threat to the UK and our interests overseas. This is a significant challenge. There have been over 1,500 terrorist-related arrests since 2010; in 2015 alone, 150 attempted journeys to the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts were disrupted; and the Security Service currently has 3,000 subjects of interest and 500 live investigations.

The events of the past year—the murder of the Member of Parliament, Jo Cox, and the appalling attack in Finsbury Park—remind us all of the threat from the far right. We will use every means available to disrupt individuals or groups associated with the far and extreme right wing who threaten or pursue acts of violence. That is why in the last year we proscribed National Action, the first such move against an extreme right-wing group.

Terrorist tactics constantly change. Although many groups still aspire to mount large-scale and complex attacks, as we have seen with the recent ones, there is a move toward so-called lone actors. These terrorists plan attacks without specific direction from terrorist groups, acting alone or in small numbers. Their weapons are often knives, small firearms, homemade explosives or vehicles. We must have a comprehensive response to this threat and our approach to countering terrorism is set out in our counterterrorism strategy, Contest. We must attack the problem at source and combat it wherever it occurs.

Since June 2013, our police and security services have disrupted 18 terrorist plots in the UK that were either linked to or inspired by Daesh and its propaganda, including five since the attack in Westminster on 22 March. In the last Parliament, we announced an increase of 30% over five years in government spending on counterterrorism. We have protected overall police funding in real terms since 2015 and funded an uplift in the number of armed police officers. There are more officers and staff involved in counterterrorism policing than ever before. However, the challenge is not simply about maintaining police numbers. As the nature and complexity of the threat changes, so does the nature of the skills needed to tackle the threat.

Due to the unique and sensitive nature of the work, counterterrorism policing requires highly skilled staff, including specialist armed officers and detectives, digital and cyber experts, all who have the highest levels of vetting. Funding for the security and intelligence agencies has increased in cash terms by 5% since 2010, from £2 billion to £2.1 billion, and we are in the process of recruiting over 1,900 additional security and intelligence staff.

In addition to ongoing investigations and intelligence gathering, significant protective security measures have been implemented to protect potential targets. We will continue to see enhanced levels of police resources—both armed and unarmed—on our streets, and this will continue for as long as it is needed. We have increased physical security measures in some places, for example to protect pedestrians on our bridges. All forces have reviewed their security and police plans for forthcoming events and, where necessary, additional security measures have been put in place.

The Government continue long-standing work to provide the owners and operators of crowded places with advice and guidance to understand the threat and to take appropriate measures to reduce their vulnerability to an attack. We have long had detailed plans for responding to such incidents. In recent years we have developed a strong, police-led, multiagency capability to deal with a range of terrorist attacks in the UK, and we test and exercise those regularly. Recent attacks have shown our response to be effective. The attack in Westminster was over in 82 seconds and the attacker shot dead. In Borough Market, the attackers were shot and killed in less than eight minutes, and in Finsbury Park, police officers were in the immediate vicinity of the attack and responded within one minute.

The Home Office has established a cross-government Victims of Terrorism Unit to enable us to support UK citizens directly affected by government events. We have developed a comprehensive approach to countering terrorism in prison and probation. The separation centres announced recently to manage the most dangerous and subversive offenders are just one aspect of our work. We have introduced a wide range of measures to clamp down on extremist behaviour in prison and probation, including new specialist training for front-line staff to identify and challenge extremist views. We have also created a new counterextremism task force which will advise staff on how to deal with specific terrorist threats, and have banned extremist literature from prisons.

There is no single pathway to radicalisation, whether for Islamist-inspired, far-right or any other form of terrorism. The Channel programme, which offers support to those assessed as being at risk of radicalisation, has supported over 1,000 individuals since 2012. Around a quarter of Channel cases relate to concerns over far-right extremism. We are taking the robust action that is needed to tackle radicalisation online and to counter the poisonous ideology promoted by extremists. The Government are committed to ensuring there is no safe space for terrorists to operate online.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary continues to lead efforts with technology companies to remove terrorist material. We continue to work closely with social media companies to progress an industry-led forum that will look to take a new global approach to tackling terrorist use of the internet. We have also just announced a joint programme of work with President Macron which will focus on ensuring that there are no safe spaces for terrorists on the internet. Since February 2010, social media providers have removed 270,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material, following referrals from the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit.

But we must do better. The gracious Speech we heard last month included a commitment to review our strategy to ensure that our approach continues to adapt to the evolving threat. We will also ensure that the police and security services have the powers they need and make sure that custodial sentences for terrorism-related offences are of sufficient length to keep the public safe. A separate review, led by a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, will consider the handling of recent terror attacks and ask whether there are lessons to be learned about our approach.

We live in a country which is as secure as it is open, diverse and inclusive, but there are those in Britain who do not share our values and who wish to do us harm. Extremism cannot be ignored. As the Prime Minister has said, “Enough is enough”. We need to do more to confront extremists and to contest their narratives. Since 2015, we have had a government-wide counterextremism strategy—the first of its kind. At the heart of the strategy is a partnership with every single person and organisation in this country that wants to stand up for our fundamental British values and is committed to defeating extremism. Through the strategy the Government have taken steps to protect our public institutions from the threat of extremism. Good progress has been made. We are supporting civil society groups to confront extremism in their communities and we have established community co-ordinators to work locally in support of groups challenging extremism.

However, there is more that we can and must do. That is why we are establishing a powerful new commission for countering extremism. The commission will help us to take on extremist ideology in all its forms. It will work in communities, with the public sector and across society to promote and defend our values of democracy and the rule of law, of the freedoms of belief and expression, and of mutual respect, tolerance, opportunity for all and integration. Work is under way on the design of the commission and we will set out our plans in due course.

In the last Parliament we introduced the Investigatory Powers Act to ensure that law enforcement has the crucial powers needed to investigate and disrupt terrorists, paedophiles and organised criminals, and the Criminal Finances Act improves our capability to tackle terrorist finance, fraud and corruption, making the UK a more hostile place to launder the proceeds of crime. There are more than 6,000 organised crime groups active in and causing harm to the United Kingdom. Serious and organised crime costs the UK at least £24 billion each year. Around £5 billion of the annual “tax gap” is due to organised crime, so the threat is very real. In October 2016, a month-long operation led by the National Crime Agency and national counterterrorism policing led to the seizure of 833 firearms, nearly half of which are viable, and with hundreds still being assessed.

UK residents are more likely to be the victims of fraud than any other type of crime. Last week, the National Crime Agency produced its annual strategic assessment which shows that the scale of threats such as modern slavery and human trafficking is growing. Organised criminals are abusing online technology to defraud and extort, to facilitate the abuse of children, and to advertise the victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. The rise of the dark web has created illicit international marketplaces for firearms, drugs and indecent images of children. The Government are alive to the significant threat of serious and organised crime.

We have established new partnerships with industry, harnessing the skills and knowledge they can bring to bear. The Joint Fraud Taskforce is bringing government, banks and law enforcement together to lead the fight against fraud, and the National Crime Agency continues to build on its impressive track record of disrupting serious and organised crime and safeguarding children. Between April 2015 and March 2016, its work resulted in more than 3,000 arrests and 915 convictions, with 236 tonnes of illegal drugs seized, and £26 million in assets recovered. In that same period, the work of the NCA led to 1,802 children being safeguarded or protected. We are leading the global effort to end online child sexual exploitation and abuse. The WePROTECT initiative began with a UK-hosted summit in 2014. It has galvanised the global effort to tackle this despicable crime.

Our economic and international status make us a target for criminal cyberactivity and for hostile foreign intelligence services. The threat from serious cybercriminals is growing and we know that there are several established, capable states seeking to exploit computers and communications networks to gather intelligence and intellectual property from UK government, military, industrial and economic targets. Recent ransomware activity that impacted our NHS networks and the attack on parliamentary systems brings these threats into stark focus. Our national cybersecurity strategy, supported by a £1.9 billion investment, will improve our country’s ability to deal with cyber threats. The National Cyber Security Centre, which began work in October last year, will work with law enforcement, the intelligence community and industry to make the UK the safest place to live and do business online.

Our border is a critical line of defence against threats to our national security. Our capabilities to identify and disrupt threats are amongst the most advanced in the world. We continually review those measures and ensure that they are proportionate to the threat. The border provides us with a unique line of defence and an intervention point. There is a high level of collaboration between all common travel area members to strengthen the external CTA border, including use of passenger data and joint operational activity. This work is fully embedded into the work of our border security.

It is clear that there are real and persistent threats to our security, but we are committed to ensuring that our response to these threats adapts and evolves to meet them. We have unique assets in this country: the bravery of our emergency responders; the skill and dedication of our law enforcement and security and intelligence services; and, above all, our shared values. These will remain the cornerstone of security efforts in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

15:32

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by referring to my interests in the register—in particular that I chair the independent reference group of the National Crime Agency and co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Policing and security. I and the whole House are grateful to the Government for giving time to this important debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for outlining the terrorist attacks that have taken place against this country in the last few months.

It was against the background of the series of murderous terrorist incidents across western Europe from the beginning of 2015 that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, shortly after his election in May 2016, asked me to conduct an independent review of London’s preparedness to respond to a major terrorist incident. While I am tempted by the full range of issues that the noble Baroness outlined in her introductory statement, I will confine myself specifically to how the nation should respond to the fact of terrorist attacks.

My immediate focus in conducting that review was on London’s ability to respond speedily and effectively to a marauding terrorist firearms attack. However, the review looked at a range of possible attack scenarios, including vehicles used as a weapon, as in the Nice and Berlin attacks and subsequently seen on Westminster Bridge and London Bridge. I have previously been heavily involved in this field when, on behalf of successive Home Secretaries, I had oversight of policing work on counterterrorism and security from 2004 until early 2012.

The headline conclusion of my review was that preparedness had improved substantially compared with four or five years earlier. In particular, the emergency service response would now be much faster than it would or could have been in 2011. This was demonstrated during the course of my review by a stabbing incident in Russell Square on 3 August last year. This turned out not to be a terrorist incident, although the response was triggered as though it might have been. An individual, whom the court was subsequently told was suffering from,

“an acute episode of paranoid schizophrenia”,

attacked passers-by, tragically killing an American tourist.

The time that elapsed from when the first emergency calls were received to the control room being informed that an individual had been subdued and arrested—and not shot dead, which might have been the outcome elsewhere—was less than six minutes. This was a fast response by any standard. As the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, outlined, the Westminster Bridge incident—of which, regrettably, we were all observers—lasted precisely 82 seconds from the point at which the terrorist drove his vehicle on to the pavement until he was shot dead: just 82 seconds from start to finish. Again as the Minister outlined, in the London Bridge/Borough Market attack on 3 June, the police were on the scene within two minutes and paramedics from the London Ambulance Service within six. The three terrorists were shot dead less than eight minutes after the first emergency call. In all those incidents, the emergency response was rapid. However, it is an important and salutary lesson that even those fast response times would have appeared far too slow to those caught up in the incidents concerned.

Moreover, the London incidents involved individuals carrying knives rather than guns or bombs. Had they involved multiple assailants armed with automatic weapons or explosive devices, the death tolls in such crowded places would have been far higher.

It is of course theoretically possible further to increase the armed police presence so that those response times could have been shorter. However, we should be clear: that would not eliminate the risk or necessarily prevent fatalities. People armed with powerful guns could kill a lot of people even if the emergency response time was much faster. As we saw in the Manchester Arena, it is the work of a moment for a suicide bomber to blow himself up.

So the issue is what level of risk is acceptable. Doubling or quadrupling the armed police presence would obviously have a financial cost—even if it were practically possible to recruit, train and equip the officers required—but it would also have a profound impact on our way of life. How far are we prepared to go to change the look and feel of our cities to reduce, perhaps only slightly, the number who might be killed in such an attack? That is the dilemma: whatever we do, we, government, can never guarantee safety.

During my review, I was impressed at the huge amount of thought and analysis that has gone into planning and exercising for a wide variety of attack scenarios. There is necessarily a constant need to consider developing threats and evolving attack methodologies, and I watched this in action by sitting in on the fortnightly security review committee when, among other things, the implications of the Nice attack and an incident at RAF Marham were being considered.

This sort of preparation is essential. It has to be remembered that new attack methodologies can be spread via the internet within seconds. However, while it is imperative to have as good an intelligence picture as you can, planning should also be on the basis of expecting the unexpected. That something has never happened before does not mean that it will not happen tomorrow.

I remain disturbed that, even now, not enough is being done to limit the availability of guns. We benefit from the fact that firearms are more difficult to acquire in this country than elsewhere in the world. However, there is almost a complacency about this, with an assumption that attacks such as those that occurred in Paris in 2015 would not happen to us. But London and other cities are by no means firearms free. During the July and August of my review, the Metropolitan Police recorded 202 firearms discharges compared to 87 in the same months of the previous year. These were criminal rather than terrorist incidents and, of course, there is clear evidence that some convicted terrorists have tried to obtain arms from organised crime groups or from other sources.

Our borders are not as secure as they should be—I have questioned the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on this on many occasions. We have far from adequate coverage of our coastline by air and sea patrols: just three working vessels patrolling 7,700 miles of coastline, compared to the 16 that patrol the Netherlands coastline of 280 miles. Only a tiny proportion of vehicles crossing into the country through the Channel Tunnel or on ferries are ever searched, and the same is true for crates of goods arriving through our ports. The resources available to address this have declined in the last six or seven years. If there is complacency, it is misplaced and I fear that it is only a matter of time before we see a significant gun-related terrorist incident in the UK.

More generally, it is important to build a culture of resilience into the fabric of society so that risks can be mitigated. Some of that is about physical measures: bollards and barriers to limit the scope for vehicle-based attacks, and the capacity to close off roads to prevent cars and trucks entering areas where large numbers are gathered. Much more should be done to map crowded places and proactively install barriers to reduce such attacks. It is tragic that the barriers on the London bridges are being fitted only now and were not put up before the Westminster and London Bridge attacks.

We should use design to make new buildings harder for terrorists to attack and require that certain physical standards be incorporated to make attacks more difficult. When premises require licensing for public use or for specific events, there should be an expectation set as to their emergency plans and the extent to which their staff must be trained to manage certain types of incident. I hope that the noble Baroness, when winding up, will agree to look at these matters, particularly around the licensing of events.

The aim should be to develop a culture of security in all spaces where the public have access. During the review process, I was struck by how variable this was. I was particularly concerned about schools. Most schools have plans for evacuation in the event of fire. Very few had even thought about the need for an “invacuation” plan in the event of the school being under attack: what teachers should do, how pupils ought to be drilled and so on. Most have some rudimentary perimeter control system, designed to keep out predatory paedophiles, but are less well equipped to deal with a heavily armed marauder. I specifically recommended that each school should have a governor responsible for thinking about these issues and devising arrangements appropriate and proportionate for that school. The DfE was lukewarm about issuing any guidance, saying that it was a matter for individual schools. Of course I accept that each school is different—but surely they should all be encouraged to think about these things. Perhaps the Minister, when she replies, can reassure us that this attitude in the Department for Education has now changed.

Businesses have a duty of care not only to those who work for them but also to their customers and perhaps also to those simply passing by. Many employ security personnel. In London alone there are estimated to be some 100,000 such operatives registered with the Security Industry Authority; that is roughly three times the total number of police officers. Incidentally, I understand that the Home Office commissioned a review of the Security Industry Authority and has been sitting on the results of this for some 18 months. Perhaps the noble Baroness, when she responds, can tell us when we might learn the future of these regulatory arrangements. In the event of an attack, depending on the location, it is those security guards who may be first on the scene, and the public may look to them, as uniformed members of staff, for advice and protection. At the very least, they need to be adequately trained on how to respond in the event of a terrorist incident. At best, they are a massive resource to help protect the public.

Communication is key to all this. In the recent attacks, the Metropolitan Police used its Twitter feed to provide frequent, authoritative updates to counter what might otherwise have been misleading material on social media. However, there is much more that should be done, as has happened in a number of other cities, with the development of alerts directly to the mobile phones of everyone in the areas affected. The capacity to provide cogent, real-time advice targeted at different cell sites or different types of recipient is already available. I understand that the Cabinet Office has been looking at this for some time—three years—but has not yet reached a conclusion. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when it will do so.

Preparedness has to be proactive, and flexible enough to be relevant whatever the form of attack. We all must react seamlessly and effectively, whatever the nature of the incident. We all need a mindset of community security and resilience. Our cities and towns should have security and resilience designed in. They should be part of society’s fabric. Ultimately, it means that everyone should see security and resilience as their responsibility just as much as they are the responsibility of the emergency services and the civic authorities.

15:45

[Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)]

My Lords, I start by endorsing the Minister’s concern for the victims, thinking about those who have suffered, those who have been bereaved and those who will live with life-changing injuries. I intend to raise five questions and wonder whether we can draw conclusions on any of them. I attach a caveat: I retired from MI5 10 years ago. I am out of date. Therefore, I am not going to stray into the other threats, such as cyber, on which I will rapidly fail to be convincing, but will focus on terrorism.

What conclusions can we safely draw from considering the following questions: the tempo of attacks, of which we have seen quite a few in recent months; the scale of the problem; the type of attack—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned several; the knowledge of the perpetrators; and the performance of my former service, MI5, and the police?

On the tempo, it is clear that the pace has accelerated markedly. During the five years I was privileged to lead M15—2002 to 2007—we had 15 significant plots, three of which were not detected in advance. These were: 7/7, evidently; 21/7 two weeks later, when the detonators failed to work; and Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, who was stopped by an alert air hostess. Now we know from the Home Secretary that after Westminster and before Manchester my former colleagues and the police detected and prevented from materialising five other plots in as many weeks. That shows there is a very high level of plots indeed. As the Minister mentioned, the current level of severe—meaning that an attack is highly likely—is strongly justified and the tempo is intense. Therefore, the pressure on the police, who I think have performed magnificently in recent weeks, M15 and the other agencies is relentless.

The second factor is the scale of the problem—we have already heard the figures—which I think is genuinely unprecedented. I am not one to exaggerate but when we are told that MI5 has 500 active investigations involving 3,000 subjects of interest—as well as a vast pool of some 20,000 others whom it cannot focus on at the moment but about whom there have been past concerns, and whom it would like to go back to look at if time and resources allowed—it is pretty serious. Even I find this scarcely imaginable. In 2006, I gave a speech at Queen Mary College—not invited by my noble friend Lord Hennessy but by somebody else—and I mentioned 30 plots, not nearly 500. That figure was thought at the time to be astonishingly high. At that stage, MI5 was looking at about 1,600 people. The scale of change is dramatic.

On methods, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has quite rightly encouraged us not to think narrowly in this area. We have recently seen attacks that involved few people and were unsophisticated and low-tech, using knives and vans, as well as the shrapnel-packed bomb vest of the Manchester bomber. But none of us in this House can judge whether this is a pattern: whether it will continue to be low-tech, which in some ways is more difficult to detect in advance; or whether the large-scale conspiracies with which I am familiar from my time in MI5 might return—or, a whole lot of other, different techniques. We do not know—and will not, unless we have been paying attention—whether there are cases going through the courts at the moment in a run of terrorist trials that show other sorts of methods and attacks. Among the thwarted attacks ending in prosecution or, less satisfactorily, disruption there may be ones with quite different characteristics from those that we have seen so visibly and recently. There is a suite of tools and methods that the terrorists can use, and I am confident that the authorities will not narrow their scrutiny to the most recent but be ready for a spectrum.

My next point is our knowledge of the perpetrators. Some of the perpetrators were known to the authorities in advance. I know that I would say this—but I think that that should be a cause for praise, not criticism. Intelligence had worked and identified some of those people, who were likely to have tried hard to keep their activities secret. As my colleague and noble friend Lord Evans of Weardale—who is not meant to be here, and on his behalf, I apologise to the House that he cannot be here at the end of the debate to speak—said when he was head of MI5:

“You can know of someone without knowing what they will do”.


Given the scale of the problem, there are always going to be acute choices about where to focus, where to prioritise and how to rate the threat from individuals and groups.

That brings me on to performance. I very much welcome that there was not a rush to label the recent attacks as “intelligence failure” without knowing more. Failure in intelligence clearly can occur, but you have to look back to see whether what happened was really preventable. Context and scale are important. This House should have confidence that the reviews conducted by MI5 and the police, overseen by the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, will be rigorous. I have little doubt that the Intelligence and Security Committee will also have a role. It was certainly the culture of MI5 when I was there—and I am confident that this will absolutely not have changed—to subject itself to a good deal of self-criticism and self-scrutiny in a search for constant improvement. We were never satisfied that we could not do better. We were always searching for fresh ways of maximising our chances against, sometimes, a clever opponent. We were never misled by a recent success to assume we would stop the next attack. My colleagues will have been devastated by the recent attacks, but that will not affect their determination to do their utmost to stop further ones. As the Minister said, we should not forget that 18 plots have been stopped in the past four years, saving lives and leading to the conviction and imprisonment of terrorists.

I have a few further observations on matters that I am sure will come up in this debate, the timing of which is very welcome. Terrorist groups here are directing, encouraging and inspiring people here and overseas to mount deadly attacks, and not just in London. For too long people assumed that this was a London problem, but Manchester graphically showed that it is not. Planned attacks have involved guns, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, and we must not rule them out as a possibility. We are not alone in this. Many other countries are suffering high rates of terrorism, and substantial intelligence will continue to be shared with our friends and allies. One of the things that is nearly always said after a terrorist attack is that we need to share more information. Vast amounts are shared already, but even sharing everything will not prevent some attacks.

Those are five observations, under five headings, and I have some conclusions to pick up on. In Downing Street on 4 June, the Prime Minister made four pledges: to defeat the ideology; to address the “safe spaces” of the internet; to address the safe geographic spaces; and, finally, to review the UK’s counterterrorist strategy. I will pick up only the first and the last of those.

The belief that Islam is under attack from the West, which is corrupt and decadent, holds appeal for too many in our society and around the globe—and generates, to some degree, the outrageous right-wing response to those sorts of attacks. But we need to look at the whole pattern, not just rely on the security and intelligence organisations, the police and many other people. Here I pay tribute to the vital work of MI6 and GCHQ, as well as of MI5 and the police. But we should not rely just on them to deal with the worst manifestations of this belief at the end, as it were, of the chain. All the weight should not fall on them. To use a medical analogy, we have to look at the whole epidemiology of the disease—its causes, its transmission—not just its terminal, in every sense, result. The Home Office Prevent programme, on which I fully admit I am out of date, has been much criticised but I recognise that prevention, if achievable, is the best option.

Finally, on the counterterrorism strategy, we must never tolerate language which misleads people into thinking that this can magically be cured in the short term, however hard everybody works and whatever bright ideas people have, or that all attacks can be prevented. This is a long-term problem and requires our continued resolve. But to try to cheer myself and your Lordships up at the end of my speech, I will say that as we face the challenge, we draw on great strengths, such as world-leading police, intelligence and emergency services—some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said were very reassuring to me—equipped with the powers they need to do their job. Many of your Lordships will have been in the Chamber during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Act and know that they have the powers to do the job, alongside deep and enduring international partnerships, and the resilience and courage of our people, including the members of the public who behave so bravely in many of these attacks.

15:58

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, building on that, I will try to be a little hopeful. I too thank the Government for the opportunity to discuss these matters. First, we need to acknowledge that in the light of these horrors we are right to identify security as a primary aim of government. In a debate such as this, we also need to make sure that we pay proper tribute to our Armed Forces, police, prison staff and many others who daily face danger and harm—and of course, as we know, who even lay down their lives, such as PC Keith Palmer.

It is also incumbent on us to remember those who have laid down their lives in the past. This gives me a chance just to mention PC Ian Dibell, who died restraining a gunman in Clacton five years ago in the diocese where I serve—yesterday was the fifth anniversary of his death. We need to remember and to salute these individuals. But of course this debate is also about how we support and resource them so that they can do their job of maintaining our security. I certainly welcome what I have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, about the comprehensive and international approach that the Government want to take but, along with others, want to question whether the resources we are looking at will be sufficient. As we have just heard, we also need to be resolute in identifying and opposing anyone who harbours, supports or funds terrorism—anyone at all, from any direction or ideology.

Furthermore, it is rightly said that when strengthening defences against terror and murder, we must not sacrifice the freedoms which are among the values that stand so firmly at the heart of our national life. We welcome and recognise that this Government, like their predecessors, will attend closely to the right balances between privacy, safety, freedom and security that we have already heard about.

I want briefly to emphasise one further angle, which I hope is hopeful, and perhaps takes a slightly longer view. The word “secure” originally means “without care”. It is a condition where one is free enough from apprehension and fear to flourish and develop as a person and as a society. The Hebrew word “Shalom” and the Arabic word “Salaam”— basically, the same word—are very close in meaning to “secure”. They point to a totality of harmonious relationships where one is safe and secure, where there can be human flourishing and where human well-being for everyone prospers.

Of course, when such security is threatened, our instinct is to build more walls and post more sentries. As I hope that I have already made clear, proper provision and support for those who keep us safe and making that a national priority is of course vital, but we must also acknowledge that, beyond that, bigger walls and more heavily armed sentries cannot be the only answer.

In Australia, cattle graze on vast farmlands without the boundary markings of a fence. “How do you gather your cattle together?”, a rancher was asked. “How do you keep them safe?”. “When you have dug a well,” he replied, “you do not need a wall”. This is another interesting approach to security. The long-term security of our nation and our world will only be achieved in the same way. As well as investing in walls, we must equally—perhaps, more so—invest in wells.

One thing that pains us most about recent incidents is that these terrorists are homegrown. It gives me no pleasure to say that in the diocese where I serve, which covers five east London boroughs and the whole of the county of Essex, in the work I do visiting communities, many young people feel disfranchised and overlooked and do not have the opportunities that we would wish them to have. I am not trying to make any particular point here, other than that I see that. These conditions are breeding grounds for disenchantment which can, under a certain toxic mix of circumstances, turn to radicalisation of various sorts.

We need to provide the wells: the opportunities, the hope, the unifying values that can refresh and envision. It is good to hear about the initiatives that the Government and previous Governments have made. I thank them for them—indeed, I have been involved in some of them locally—but we must continue to address them. For instance, there is Near Neighbours in east London and the work of local schools, parish churches and other faith and community groups. On the ground, these are places that are investing in our neighbourhoods and providing hope. In the end, it is these things that will be our very best defence against the entrapment and radicalisation that leads to terror and dis-ease.

I hope that government policy will continue to keep its eye on the well as well as the wall and that your Lordships will forgive me, as one who is a follower of someone who broke down barriers and burst out of tombs, and consider this a reasonable contribution to this debate.

16:05

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. I think it is the first time she has opened a debate in this House, and I congratulate her on the way in which she has done it on a subject on which I must say your Lordships have already heard enough to realise that there will be some very significant contributions. Indeed, we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, with his huge experience in policing in particular, and, of course, from the noble Baroness, with her unrivalled knowledge in this field. As I am following the right reverend Prelate, I shall say one or two words about the relationship that the Church of England and the other churches can play because at the heart of this is the terrifying abuse of religion, if one looks at it in that way, in which we have a sect that now seems to believe that 98% of the world’s population are legitimate targets in pursuit of its particular objectives, which is an amazing situation.

I bring to this debate my own experiences in Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to terrorism, but I am struck enormously by the totally different situation that we face here. Thank goodness we never had suicide bombers, who introduce a totally different range of possibilities of assault. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to trucks and vehicles in which the drivers themselves accept at the start that they will probably not come out of it. They are lethal and damaging attacks and can be very much worse. I think that one single driver in the lorry in Nice killed 80 people, so terrifying new possibilities exist.

I am also very much struck by something else. Sinn Fein/IRA, as it was then, was sensitive to public opinion to an extent. It did not want to lose morale and tried to enlist more and more support from the nationalist community. I remember particularly the huge damage that was done to it by the attack at Enniskillen—noble Lords will remember the number of people killed at a Remembrance Day service. That was a huge public relations setback for the IRA and Sinn Fein at that time. The terrorists that we face now seem not to mind at all the outrage committed in the cause that they seek to serve.

I went on from Northern Ireland and then defence to be the first chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee—a few noble Lords behind me will remember that with either pleasure or grief. I stopped doing that when I left the House of Commons in 2001. I stopped being an MP then and came to your Lordships’ House. I am struck by the fact that, at that time, as an MP I had not had an email. Members of Parliament now have to cope with 300 or 400 emails a day and the burst of new challenges that now exist in that whole world. It is only 16 years, but we have had since this extraordinary explosion of social media communications, the world of the internet and—which I find very difficult to keep up with—the worlds of WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and Twitter. They are all virtually brand new in the history of our time, yet they pose enormous challenges.

I strongly support what the noble Baroness just said about the situation that we face going forward. This is not a short-term problem. The situation in the world at the moment is the most disturbed it has ever been. There are 60 million displaced people in the world at present, some internally displaced within their own country and others desperately trying to get to another place that may be rather happier than where they were brought up.

The problems now are linked together: the population explosion; climate change; the number of countries that are failed states, where the best thing that anyone can do for themselves and their families is to get out as quickly as they can and try to move to other countries; and the problems of water supply. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, gave me an article about the prospects for Iran, saying that the water prospects there could mean that up to 20 million people will have to emigrate within 30 years’ time. That could be a gross exaggeration, as somebody said, but even if it is, it still means that the potential for disturbance and the problems that could arise from that are massive.

Against that background, we have Islamic extremism. At the moment, although there seem to be military victories—and the latest news from Mosul and what may be happening in Raqqa may be encouraging news in that respect—encouragement has probably been given to the leadership by lone wolf attacks, which offers no great encouragement of any early change.

On the subject of lone wolves and all that, I have been hugely impressed by the skill and ability of ISIS in the whole social media field. Look at the production of videos—I do not know where ISIS does it, and I do not know whether we will be told that the success against Mosul and Raqqa means that suddenly ISIS will find that harder to organise. But it has been extremely impressive in its ability to produce videos. It has done it for operational communications—and I understand that the whole of the explosion of success that ISIS had in its early stages in capturing all those territories was entirely done by communications on WhatsApp. It is far more efficient communication than we ever had in the British Army, in terms of instant communication with thousands of people. That can be illustrated by the way, as noble Lords may have noticed, a substantial force can suddenly turn up somewhere it was not expected—in Palmyra, for example, which ISIS captured when we thought it was on the run.

The use of the social media outlets in that way has been hugely effective. Some of it has been for operational purposes, and some of it has been for poisonous propaganda, which it has used extremely successfully, with incredibly large audiences. It is not just a problem of what is being said in the mosque; if those hate preachers get on to Facebook, Twitter or whatever communication vehicle—and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, knows much better than I do how they might do this—they can potentially communicate with millions of people. Also, given the opportunity, they can recruit a lot of new people as well.

I was very struck by the article in the Times today, which some may have seen, which says that Germany is taking a substantial initiative to try to get the social media companies to be much more active and prompt in removing unacceptable illegal content, including hate speech, terrorist material and other forms. The article says:

“Videos on social media are known to have influenced Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, and Khuram Butt, one of the London Bridge attackers”.


We also know that the Manchester bomber found instructions on YouTube on how to make his bomb. Against that background, Germany has now acted and is setting fines of up to €50 million under a network enforcement law, if companies fail promptly to remove illegal content, including hate speech and terrorist material.

The Prime Minister has already gone on record, in May, I think—as has President Macron of France—to say that we are thinking of doing something along these lines. I hope we can get on with it, because the Germans are already doing it. We certainly know that there is no question of these companies having no money and being unable to afford to take the necessary steps in these directions. They could be much prompter in dealing with some of these abuses and the quite unacceptable and dangerous material which is being allowed on their various channels.

Against the background of all the threats that we face, I strongly endorse what the noble Baroness said. I am hugely impressed by the successes which our intelligence services have had. The fact that they do not catch every single one should not be seen as an abject failure. The volume which the noble Baroness spelt out so well—the number of incidents they are dealing with—is obviously a huge and critical challenge for them, and they deserve our fullest support.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, things are going to go wrong. There is a real risk of further incidents and nasty challenges of one sort or another. Against the threat that we face, it may not be possible to hold them all. When she opened the debate, the noble Baroness drew attention to the seriousness of that threat. In such situations, during my time in Northern Ireland I always felt the resilience of the local population: the world was not coming to an end and they were going to stand together and overcome the challenges they faced. Maintaining public morale in these dangerous situations is hugely important.

And we do that, not as an isolated country, but with the fullest international co-operation. Countries throughout the world are now facing challenges of this kind. It would be no surprise to anyone in this Chamber whichever country it turned up in. It might be in South America, the Far East, in Africa or somewhere in Europe, but we all face it and need to work together with every other Government of good will. We particularly need to maintain our European relationships, including Europol, as actively as possible so that we can do the best possible job of protecting our country against the very serious threats which we face and which we will have to be prepared to resist.

16:18

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland. I too welcome the fact that the Government have found time for this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, about the huge level of expertise among those who have already spoken—including, of course, the noble Lord himself—and all those who will speak afterwards. I fear I am not really in the same category. I did have experience as a Defence Minister, but I left that even longer ago than the noble Baroness left MI5, so my knowledge of security from the military point of view, if there ever was very much, is much reduced. My present position does compel me to talk about the policing side of security, and counterterrorism is not the only part of policing which touches on, and is essential to, security. In preparing for this debate, I was lucky to receive a written briefing from my force and, more importantly, I spoke to my chief constable, the deputy and assistant chief constables and the head of counterterrorism in Leicester. However, it should be clear that all the remarks I make are mine and no one else’s.

I had the privilege of attending the gold group that was set up immediately following the Manchester outrage and to have been present at a number of meetings at which the emphasis was on security and safety of all those who live and work in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. That perhaps gives me a little insight into how and in what manner an excellent police force deals with the security crisis resulting from this series of attacks in Westminster, Manchester, Borough Market and Finsbury Park. Therefore, I hope the House will forgive me for sharing some thoughts from someone who does not have a career background in policing but hopefully has picked up one or two things in the last 14 months.

A fundamental truth is that security has to be a total system, starting in neighbourhoods and reaching to the security services, and so the importance of neighbourhood policing in the security field cannot be exaggerated. Information that can save people’s lives can and does come from a proper—by that, I mean a properly funded—system of neighbourhood policing. That is why the funding debate, which I hope the Government now recognise is a real debate, cannot in the security field be about simply giving more money to counterterrorism, important and timely though that is, given the cuts that have already taken place in counterterrorism over a number of years.

Everyone knows that neighbourhood policing has suffered most over the last few years from the cutbacks in police funding which seemed to be policy for the coalition and for the present Government. No one is saying that efficiencies and some savings were not sensible and necessary, but I submit that all reasonable people know that it has gone too far. Talking in a local context, the figures are frightening. In Leicestershire, for example, we have had a cut in grant of approximately 38% and have lost 547 police officers between 2009 and 2016—that is around 23%. We now have one police officer per 599 members of the public. In 2006, there was one police officer per 430 members of the public.

This loss of funding cannot be sustained for ever. The Government must stop pretending that flat cash funding does not represent a cut in real terms, because it quite clearly does. The effect of these cuts can be seen even more clearly and sharply at a time of crisis in national security, when they are highlighted in a startling way. It shows how good security fundamentally depends on policing being properly funded. Of course, the lack of police numbers makes it even more difficult for forces to take the action needed following an incident.

Of course, the police are used to being under pressure. That goes with the job: it is what police officers sign up to. However, there has been just too much pressure in the last few months. This is because limited resource has had to be moved to cover extra work occasioned by the change in the threat level to critical, and the continued heightened atmosphere, followed by the move back, a few days later, to severe. In policing parlance, there were a lot of abstractions, which required much back-filling. This involved many 12-hour shifts, which resulted, frankly, in many worn-out and exhausted police officers and police staff. This will have happened around the country. In my own view, Leicestershire Police responded very well, with a calmness and sense of public responsibility that we have become used to. However, the underlying truth, which cannot be escaped, is that there are now just too few cops. In the words of a senior officer, “The security crisis is amplified by the lack of resource”.

In fact, the way in which the force has publicly responded is to be applauded—and I know that that is true of other forces around the country as well. I will tell the House some of the measures which have been taken by my local force in response to the security issues the country faces. First, it has put more visibly armed officers on the street and in key locations, but with a strict brief to talk and be friendly with the public they meet; secondly, it has increased community engagement, including, of course, involvement in interfaith activities and taking part in the vigils that occurred outside mosques as well as in other public areas; thirdly, it has set up a gold group, which I mentioned, which has drafted a strategy to cover the whole force area, drawing up, for example, a list of public events that would need special attention; fourthly, and importantly, it has briefed and had input from the local resilience forum, which has worked well; fifthly, there has been a strong, powerful response to any increase in hate crime; sixthly, a sophisticated communications plan has kept the public both advised and informed by way of joint circulars to partners, including local authorities and other agencies, with up-to-date information, signed off by a chief officer and myself; and, finally, there has been public reassurance on the media, and of course—here I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord King, said—on social media, from the chief constable himself.

Because of my role as the bridge or link between the public and the police, I needed to be satisfied that at this highly sensitive time the police were getting it right and that the messages being put out were appropriate. I am proud to say that the diverse public that make up the Leicestershire area have remained very supportive of all the actions that so far their police force has taken. In fact, I have heard no criticism, and people are not normally short of coming up with criticism of the police.

We are all still very conscious that the security situation is still very serious, and I hope that we are alive to the dangers the country still faces. In Leicestershire, we are proud of our diversity: the fact that people with different backgrounds and faiths live and work next to each other peacefully is a matter of great pride. Everyone, from wherever they come, agrees that there can be no other response, of course, than total condemnation of those who practice terror. Tomorrow evening, I will be opening a police-inspired meeting around the Prevent programme, at which all communities will be represented. The intention is to discuss the events of the last few months and the way forward. It is only through the community and the police working together that we can possibly defeat those whose evil actions are determined to divide us. We will not be divided.

16:28

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I take part in this debate with some diffidence, in particular following the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. Their experience is practical, whereas mine, albeit as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, has always been theoretical.

I will pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord King, about the significance of the retaking of Mosul. We have already seen evidence of displacement of effort from Daesh, and it is likely—indeed, inevitable—that that will continue, and at a much greater level. That, if anything, will once again increase the burden on those whom we charge with the responsibility of providing our safety and security.

I doubt very much that it is possible to defeat the doctrine of so-called ISIS. I suspect that containment and deterrence may be as much as we can do, at least in the short term, but, as has been referred to in the debate, that does not in any way absolve us from doing the things which Parliament and society can do in support of the security services, rather than just relying on them, and I will come to one or two of those things towards the end of my remarks.

In the aftermath of some of these terrible events, it is often said that they have been an illustration of mindless violence. It is not mindless; it is clearly decided upon because of its effectiveness in causing fear in the first instance, in provoking extreme responses, which may yet radicalise more of those who are sympathetic to the cause of the terrorists, and in undermining the values of the societies which they detest to the point of destruction. We should never forget that those who direct terrorism do not lack ambition. They will never be satisfied, I suppose you could argue, until the last round is fired and the last man or woman is standing. Therefore, the problem will have many facets, even after what might be thought to be considerable success.

When anxiety is expressed about these matters, it is sometimes said that the statistics tell us that you are less likely to be killed by an act of terrorism than you are in a road traffic accident. Of course, that is not the point, because a terrorist attack is the most intrusive violation of our space. It is a violation of our values and a violation of our rights, and that is why it can never be compared with fatalities from traffic accidents, as some rather loosely seek to do.

The physical and emotional impact on victims of terrorism is self-evident, but the emotional impact on society at large is in many ways equally severe. There is the fear and alarm to which I have already referred but there is also the undermining of our confidence to go about our daily business, and of course the undermining of the confidence of those who have the difficult responsibility of ensuring our protection. That last point is even more significant when the recent mechanisms of terrorism have been everyday objects such as vehicles and knives.

In such circumstances as we find ourselves after the events of the last few months, it is easy for the debate to become polarised, in that people—often in newspapers’ editorial columns—simply call for more powers for the authorities. However, such calls are met by fears that that would be irreparably damaging to the very freedoms that are the foundation of our society. We saw some of that in the progress of the Investigatory Powers Bill through this House, but I want to say now, as I said then, that in my judgment that Act contains necessary powers governed by necessary safeguards.

It is not clear to me that any of the atrocities of the last few months would have been prevented by increased powers or longer sentences. There is some suggestion that we should create what has rather fancifully been described as an Alcatraz. But I offer the slightly fanciful parallel of Colditz. The Germans put all those people who were clever at escaping into Colditz, and what did they do? They became much cleverer. They were not perhaps as successful as they might have hoped, but they passed on the tradecraft they had learned and therefore became all the more skilled at what they sought to do.

These terrible events might have been prevented by greater resources in order to ensure full use of the powers already available. The noble Baroness who introduced the debate referred to the additional 1,900 positions and the effort to ensure that the total sums expended in these matters kept pace with inflation. But I remind her that that undertaking was given by Prime Minister David Cameron, in the autumn of 2014 to the best of my knowledge and most certainly before the general election in 2015. Noble Lords who have contributed to the debate so far have pointed out the extreme nature of the challenge as compared with historical circumstances. In that spirit, I respectfully suggest that the whole issue of resources needs revisiting.

I also hope that it is possible—and I am talking about society—to create an environment in which individuals will be more willing to provide information to the authorities. There are two kinds of intelligence, SIGINT and HUMINT, and I sometimes think with our justifiable concern about the internet that we do not place sufficient emphasis on achieving the kind of information that can be provided by witnesses. I also believe—I am happy to see that the Government have this issue in mind—that we need a different relationship with the internet service providers. In support of that, I offer the fact that Fusilier Lee Rigby was murdered by two men who were known to the authorities, one of whom, it later emerged, had been engaged in an exchange on the internet on the basis of having said, “I want to kill a soldier”. That information emerged only after his conviction and that of his co-accused. That puts into sharp relief the extent to which the internet service providers are willing to ensure that such information is not allowed to lie on the internet.

The interesting thing about that case is that the individual concerned had had several accounts closed because of the unacceptable nature of the material on them. I appreciate that this involves a considerable burden that gives rise to all kinds of social and some might even argue cultural issues, but the internet cannot be freely used without any check or effort to prevent the dissemination of material that arms those who seek to do us harm.

None of the things I have suggested would necessarily have guaranteed that Trooper Lee Rigby would have been saved, but one or other of them might have done so. On that basis, when we are seeking to eliminate risk, we must consider every possible avenue by which to do so.

I have already referred to what I call, perhaps rather neutrally, a more productive relationship with the internet service providers. The noble Baroness mentioned that the Prevent strategy has been the subject of some criticism. In principle the strategy is clearly significant, but we should examine carefully the extent to which some communities have come to regard it as not only unacceptable but highly intrusive.

Finally, it is necessary to pay tribute, as others have done, to the quite extraordinary quality of those who have the responsibility for protecting us—not only the security services but the police as well. As we have seen recently, they put their lives at risk in an effort to fulfil their responsibilities; sometimes a legal obligation but I suspect for many of them, a far greater moral responsibility. We should never discuss the issues we are considering today without recognising the importance of these obligations.

G20

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:40

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows.

“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the G20 in Hamburg. At this summit we showed how a global Britain can play a key role in shaping international responses to some of the biggest challenges of our time. On terrorism, trade, climate change, international development, migration, modern slavery and women’s economic empowerment, we made leading contributions on issues that critically affect our national interest but which can be addressed only by working together with our international partners.

On terrorism, as we have seen with the horrific attacks in Manchester and London, the nature of the threat we face is evolving and our response must evolve to meet it. The UK is leading the way. At the G7 and subsequently through a detailed action plan with President Macron, I called for industry to take responsibility to more rapidly detect and report extremist content online. The industry has now announced the launch of a global forum to do just that. We set the agenda again at this summit by calling on our G20 partners to squeeze the lifeblood out of terrorist networks by making the global financial system an entirely hostile environment for terrorists, and we secured agreements on all our proposals.

We agreed to work together to ensure that there are no safe spaces for terrorist financing by increasing capacity-building and raising standards worldwide, especially in terrorist finance hotspots. We agreed to bring industry and law enforcement together to develop new tools and technologies to better identify suspicious small flows of money being used to support low-cost terrorist attacks such as those we have seen in the UK. And just as interior Ministers are following up on the online agenda we set at the G7, so finance Ministers will follow through on these G20 commitments to cut off the funding that fuels the terrorist threat we face.

I also called for the G20 to come together to better manage the risk posed by foreign fighters as they disperse from the battlefield in Syria and Iraq, and we agreed that we would work to improve international information-sharing on the movement of individuals known to have travelled to and from Daesh territory. By working together in these ways, we can defeat this terrorist threat and ensure that our way of life will always prevail.

Turning to the global economy, we are seeing encouraging signs of recovery with the IMF forecasting that global GDP will rise by 3.5% this year, but many both here in the UK and across the G20 are simply not sharing in the benefits of that growth. So we need to build a global economy that works for everyone by ensuring that trade is not just free but also, crucially, fair for all. That means fair for all people here in the UK, which is why we are forging a modern industrial strategy that will help to bring the benefits of trade to every part of our country. It means fair terms of trade for the poorest countries, which is why we will protect their trade preferences as we leave the EU, and in time explore options to improve their trade access. It also means strengthening the international rules that make trade fair between countries. So at this summit I argued that we must reform the international trading system, especially the World Trade Organization given its central role, so that it keeps pace with developments in key sectors like digital and services, and so that it is better able to resolve disputes.

Some countries are not playing by the rules. They are not behaving responsibly and are creating risks to the global trading system. Nowhere is this more clear than in relation to the dumping of steel on global markets. The urgent need to act to remove excess capacity was recognised last year at the G20, but not enough has been done since. If we are to avoid unilateral action by nations seeking to protect themselves from unfairly priced steel, we need immediate collective action. So we agreed that the global forum established last year needs to be more effective and the pace of its work must quicken. To ensure that its work gets the necessary attention and there is senior accountability, I have pressed for relevant Ministers from around the world to meet in this forum.

The UK will play a leading role in championing all these reforms so that all citizens can share in the benefits of global growth. As we leave the European Union, we will negotiate a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU, but we will also seize the exciting opportunities to strike deals with old friends and new partners. At this summit, I held a number of meetings with other world leaders, all of whom made clear their strong desire to forge ambitious new bilateral trading relationships with the UK after Brexit. This included America, Japan, China and India. This morning I welcomed Australian Prime Minister Turnbull to Downing Street, where he also reiterated his desire for a bold new trading relationship. All these discussions are a clear and powerful vote of confidence in British goods, British services, the British economy and the British people. I look forward to building on them in the months ahead.

On climate change, the UK reaffirmed its commitment to the Paris agreement, which is vital if we are to take responsibility for the world we pass on to our children and grandchildren. There is not a choice between decarbonisation and economic growth, as the UK’s own experience shows—we have reduced our emissions by around 40% in the last 16 years but grown our GDP by almost two-thirds. So I and my counterparts at the G20 are dismayed at America’s withdrawal from this agreement. I spoke personally to President Trump to encourage him to rejoin the Paris agreement and I continue to hope that is exactly what he will do.

On international development, we reaffirmed our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance and we set out plans for a new long-term approach to reduce Africa’s reliance on aid. This includes focusing on supporting African aspirations for trade and growth, creating millions of new jobs and harnessing the power of capital markets to generate trillions of new investment. We welcomed Germany’s new Compact with Africa, which reflects these principles.

On migration, I expressed the UK’s continued support for the scale of the challenge facing Italy and agreed with Prime Minister Gentiloni that a UK expert Home Office and DfID delegation will travel out to Italy to see how we can help further. This is further evidence that, while we are leaving the European Union, as a global Britain we will continue to work closely with all our European partners. The G20 also agreed to use the upcoming negotiations on the UN global compacts to seek the comprehensive approach that the UK has been arguing for. This includes ensuring refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach; improving the way we distinguish between refugees and economic migrants; and developing a better overall approach to managing economic migration. It also includes providing humanitarian and development assistance to refugees in their home region. At this summit, the UK committed £55 million to support the Government of Tanzania in managing their refugee and migrant populations, and to support the further integration of new naturalised Burundian refugees.

Turning to modern slavery, it is hard to comprehend that in today’s world innocent and vulnerable men, women and children are being enslaved, forced into hard labour, raped, beaten and passed from abuser to abuser for profit. We cannot and will not ignore this dark and barbaric trade in human beings that is simply horrifying in its inhumanity. That is why I put this issue on the G20 agenda at my first summit a year ago, and at this summit I pushed for a global and co-ordinated approach to the complex business supply chains which can feed the demand for forced labour and child labour.

Our groundbreaking Modern Slavery Act requires companies to examine all aspects of their businesses, including their supply chains, and to publish their results. I called on my G20 partners to follow Britain’s lead. I welcomed Germany’s proposed Vision Zero Fund, to which the UK is contributing, as an important part of helping to ensure the health and safety of workers in those global supply chains.

Finally, we agreed to create better job opportunities for women, to remove the legal barriers and to end the discrimination and gender-based violence that restrict opportunities both at home and abroad. As part of this, the UK is contributing to the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative, launched by the World Bank, which will provide more than $1 billion to support women in developing countries to start and grow businesses. This is not just morally right, it is economically essential. The UK will continue to play a leading role in driving forward women’s economic empowerment across the world.

Of course we did not agree on everything at this summit, in particular on climate change, but when we have such disagreements, it is only more important that we come together in forums such as the G20 to try to resolve them. As a global Britain, we will continue to work at bridging differences between nations and forging global responses to issues that are fundamental to our prosperity and security, and to that of our allies around the world. That is what we did at this summit and that is what this Government will continue to do. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

16:51

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, from a number of reports I have read, this seems to have been quite a challenging G20 meeting, but the Prime Minister’s Statement strikes an extremely optimistic note about future trade relationships—she spoke about “exciting opportunities”. It is clear that, for her, our role in the global economy and trade relationships and trade deals following Brexit were high on her agenda.

The Statement refers to the bilateral meetings with America, Japan, India and China. We have had reports of that meeting with President Trump. I understand that the Prime Minister claimed to be “optimistic” that President Trump could be taken at his word regarding a swift trade deal with the UK. Let us remind ourselves of what President Trump said, because, as we know, he never knowingly understates a case:

“There is no country that could possibly be closer than our countries. We have been working on a trade deal which will be a very, very big deal, a very powerful deal, great for both countries and … we will have that done very, very quickly”.


Yet the experienced Canadian negotiator who dealt with the Canada-US trade agreement described that statement as “political puffery”. As well as understanding the complexities of international trade deals, the President would have to consult Congress, which would have to take at least six months to consider the issue. Is that the Prime Minister’s understanding as well? It would be helpful to have some clarity and detail about those discussions, as well as about the timescale that the Prime Minister discussed with the President given his quite emphatic statements. We also need assurances that, in her eagerness to ensure a deal, we do not negotiate away the protections that we have gained—for example, for the environment, for employees and for food safety—that have served this country well.

Many of us may have heard the report a few weeks ago on Radio 4—I think that it was on the “Today” programme—about American poultry farmers who, post Brexit, want to export their chickens and turkeys to the UK. US standards allow chemicals in production that we in this country do not consider safe or appropriate. We have to maintain our high standards, so assurances on that issue would be welcome.

Is the noble Baroness able to provide some more information on the other bilateral discussions with Japan, China and India, which do not seem to have received the same attention? At the last G20 meeting in September, following our bilateral with Japan, the Japanese Prime Minister issued a 15-page document on its specific concerns regarding a trade relationship. When the Japanese returned to the bilateral at this meeting, did they discuss that document and have those concerns been addressed? Last time, the Prime Minister was unable to say whether they had discussed car manufacturing. Is the noble Baroness able to do so today, particularly with reference to any financial assurances that have been given for the post-Brexit era? Also, the Statement referred to a meeting today—not at the G20 but today—and discussions at No. 10 with the Australian Prime Minister. I am not quite sure why that is in the Statement: it does not seem any different from the casual assurances and statements made at last year’s meeting, but seems to be just a repetition of an ambition, at some point in the future, post Brexit, to do a trade deal. Can the noble Baroness tell us what those discussions were today and why that is in the Statement?

Staying with trade issues, the Statement refers to the risks created by the dumping of steel on global markets. One report at the weekend said that UK officials acted as a go-between during the disagreement between the US and China over the alleged overproduction of steel. The Statement refers to calls to remove excess capacity in steel from global markets. The noble Baroness may recall that the steel industry in this country was desperate for the Government to back European intervention to protect our steel industry from being destroyed by imported steel, yet the UK Government at that time refused to act. Therefore, I am curious now about the role the UK played as a so-called go-between. Can she enlighten us on that?

On economic issues, the declaration raises a number of matters under the heading “Building Resilience”. Mark Carney, who is also the chair of the G20 financial stability board, has warned about the continued economic risks to the UK banking sector. While the UK’s financial stability remains resilient, there are a number of worrying trends; specifically, the increase in consumer credit, which at more than 10% is outstripping household income. The ratio of household debt to income is high by historic standards. Is this the case across the G20, and was this considered at the summit?

On counterterrorism, which was the first issue the Prime Minister raised in her Statement, the noble Baroness will be aware that I have returned to this issue many times to express concerns about how our leaving the EU improves our serious and organised crime and counterterrorism operations and investigations. Obviously, we welcome any successful co-operation on counterterrorism, including tackling the funding of extremism. In the Statement the Prime Minister says that:

“The UK is leading the way”.


Does she understand and recognise that part of leading the way is through the co-operative work we lead and are part of within the EU? What consideration has been given to post-Brexit negotiations on this issue? Given that the Statement refers to tackling the funding of such activities as being key—the noble Baroness will be aware that this issue has also been raised many times in your Lordships’ House—when will the Government release the report into the foreign funding of extremism and radicalism in the UK?

Before she met President Trump the Prime Minister said she would raise with him his personal attacks on Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. The President’s attacks on the mayor on Twitter were extraordinary. What the mayor said, in reassuring people after the horrific terrorist incident in London, was “You have no need to be alarmed about additional police and armed police on our streets; they are there for your safety”. This was a perfectly reasonable and responsible comment to make. The President attacked him constantly on this on Twitter and the Prime Minister said that she would raise that directly with the President. Did she do so? The Observer newspaper reported that she failed to do it. If that is true, and given that she said she would, can the Minister assure us that she is seeking another opportunity to do so? The mayor was speaking and acting for Londoners at a difficult time and should not be attacked for doing so by a foreign leader.

Finally, my favourite film is “Casablanca”. Bear with me—it might not seem relevant but I am getting there. One of my favourite scenes, and the saddest, has Rick saying goodbye to Ilsa at the airport as she leaves with her husband to continue their work trying to save France from the Nazis. Rick tells her not to worry, saying, “We’ll always have Paris”. When the Paris agreement on climate change was signed last year, to great acclaim, I am sure that I was not the only who thought of that scene. To protect the world from climate change, we’ll always have Paris. But will we? Nineteen of the 20 countries remain committed. But President Trump’s rejection is a bitter blow. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that she raised this personally with President Trump but I understand that she did not raise it in the bilateral, which was the appropriate and proper place to do so. So how and when did she raise it? I hope it was not an informal chat over a cup of tea later on. It is all very well being “dismayed”, as the Prime Minister said in the Statement, but if our close relationship with President Trump is to be meaningful, it has to be two-way and it has to have an honesty about it. If she did not discuss it with the President in that informal meeting, did she talk to, support or advise President Macron in any way, and thank him for taking a lead on this issue? What are the implications of the US rejection of the agreement?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. “Casablanca” is also one of my favourite films. I think the line that the Prime Minister takes from it is, “Play it again”, because the use of exceptionalist phraseology is played again and again in prime ministerial responses to this kind of international gathering.

I suspect that this summit will not be remembered for any great new international agreements, for there were none. But it is possible that historians will look back on it as marking the end of US primacy in world affairs and the point at which the US accepted tacitly the Russian strategy of regional hegemony, to which there was no opposition, as far as one could see, in the long meeting between President Trump and President Putin. I suspect that at the end of those two hours it was President Putin who was smiling behind his hand, rather than his opposite number. The change in the balance of power in the world was evidenced by the summit’s communiqué, which made no attempt whatever to hide the differences between the US and the rest of the world on climate change. I was intrigued when the Prime Minister said that she urged President Trump to rejoin the Paris agreement and that she hopes that he will do so. Has she any reason to believe that this is even a slim possibility?

Many of the issues debated at the summit were worthy and important and it is a great sign of progress that we have the 20 most important countries in the world discussing issues in a constructive manner, whether it is security, migration, modern slavery or women’s empowerment. Modest baby steps forward were taken on all those issues. However, listening to the Statement, one cannot but be struck by the lack of progress on—or even mention of—some of world’s flashpoints; for example, there is nothing about the Middle East or North Korea. Clearly, this is to be regretted.

On our own domestic agenda, the summit did discuss trade, where again the US is in danger of taking a unilateral line which would weaken the world trading system. But clearly the key trade issues for the UK relate to Brexit. The Prime Minister met the leaders of America, Japan, China and India, all of whom, we are told, expressed an interest in having new bilateral trading relationships with Britain post-Brexit. The situation in respect of Japan is particularly concerning. Japan has just signed a deal with the EU which covers 19% of all world trade. It took four years to negotiate and along with the traditional tariff reductions, there are major new levels of co-operation on standards, regulation and opening up public procurement markets. What is rather chilling is the thought expressed by a leading commentator in today’s papers that unless the UK replicates the EU’s trade agreement with Japan, Japan will have a closer trading relationship with the EU than we will. Even if we replicate it, there is a major challenge to the British motor industry if we are not inside the customs union. First, Japanese direct investment is likely to go to the EU, and, secondly, rules of origin mean that unless 50% of a product is made in the country, it does not qualify for free entry into the other country. How many motor cars made in the UK have 50% of their parts made in the UK? Very few. I wonder how the Government hope and expect to be able to, at worst, replicate the trade agreement now entered into or coming into force between Japan and the EU.

As far as America is concerned, the Prime Minister seems to take President Trump at his word when he says we are going to have a terrific, new, quick trade agreement. She is the only person in the world to do so. The rest of the world just does not think it is doable. Even if were doable, it is very noticeable that the EEF has said today that the damage caused by the kind of Brexit being pursued by the Government would not be made up any potential trade deal with the US. Equally, this very weekend we had the head of the German industrial federation saying that, as far as he and Germany are concerned, trade with Britain will be second to protecting the single market and the four freedoms. So how do the Government think they are going to be able to protect trade in a situation where they are not prepared to contemplate the single market or the customs union at a time when, as the ONS pointed out this very day, some 2 million people working in Britain today owe their jobs to direct investment from the EU? That investment is jeopardised by the Government’s stance.

This was an eminently forgettable summit for the UK. The major challenges to our well-being, whether in terms of the economy, security or influence, stem from Brexit, and here the Prime Minister certainly has a lot of work to do.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. As the Statement set out, this summit saw Britain leading the way on a number of complex and challenging issues and also showed that there is a shared desire to build and maintain strong relationships. Leaders from around the world made clear their strong desire to forge lasting relationships with the UK after our exit from the European Union.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord mentioned the possible trade deal with the United States. Discussions are at a very early stage, but we are optimistic about a deal that can be struck. The International Trade Secretary was in the USA a week or so ago talking to the American Trade Minister about future trade opportunities. The Cabinet Secretary has set up a working group with Wilbur Ross, the US Trade Secretary, to discuss how we can start setting out mutually beneficial parameters for a trade deal but, as noble Lords will be aware, there is a legal limit to how much can be done before we leave the EU. However, we are starting early and positive discussions.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord also asked about Japan. The Prime Minister welcomed the announcement of the agreement in principle between Japan and the EU in relation to a free trade agreement. As we leave the EU, we are seeking to ensure continuity in our trading relationships. The EU/Japan deal could be a good starting point for that.

The noble Baroness asked about steel. Certainly, the Government recognise that dumped, or subsidised, steel is a significant global issue. We are disappointed that not all countries have fully engaged with the global forum since it was set up last year. The Prime Minister raised this issue directly with President Xi in her bilateral with him. We have also invited the UK steel sector to use the opportunity of a sector deal through our industrial strategy to set out its plans to capture future opportunities and long-term growth. We certainly value the sector and have provided support to it. We have made sure that social and economic factors can be taken into account for public sector steel procurement. We have successfully pressed for the introduction of trade defence measures to protect UK steel producers from unfair steel dumping, and we continue to compensate for the costs of renewable polices.

The noble Baroness asked about counterterrorism. As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, we want to continue to work closely with all our international partners, and have shown the impact we have had. The actions following the G7 Statement have shown that when international leaders put their collective weight behind an issue, action can be taken. We called on the private sector to step up efforts to tackle extremist content on the internet, and two weeks ago, we saw the announcement by the four major communication service providers of an industry-led global internet forum to counter terrorism. We will continue to work with our international partners in a whole array of forums to ensure that we continue to do this.

The noble Baroness asked about the review commissioned into the funding of Islamic extremist activity in the UK. The review was comprehensive and has improved our understanding of the nature, scale and sources of funding for Islamist extremism in the UK. Ministers are currently considering advice on what in the report can be published and will update Parliament in due course. In relation to the comments that President Trump made about Sadiq Khan, the Prime Minister has been very clear that she in no way supported what the President said. She made that clear and will of course continue to support the mayor in his efforts to help protect London.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both raised the issue of climate change. We joined many other leaders at the G20 in making it clear that the Paris agreement and the international momentum that underpins it are irreversible. The Prime Minister brought up the issue of climate change with President Trump and had many conversations with him about it over the time they were at the G20. As the noble Lord rightly said, she will continue to encourage and press him to bring the US back into the Paris agreement. We continue to hope that this will happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about North Korea. The Prime Minister raised that issue in her bilateral meeting with President Xi. The noble Lord also asked about trade deals. As he is well aware, we are working to negotiate a good and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU and are confident we will get a good deal for both the UK and EU. We will talk to countries that have existing relationships and arrangements with the EU about what arrangements we can come to so we can ensure a smooth process as we leave. But we are also talking, as I have said, to countries such as America and India about what we can do in terms of improving our trade relationships and what trade agreements we can have once we leave the EU.

17:12

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Would my noble friend accept that there is actually quite a lot to welcome in this Statement from the point of view of the United Kingdom and other countries? I was particularly pleased that the intention to reform the World Trade Organization was in the Statement—that is overdue—and our decision to help Italy face the enormous new wave of migrants and refugees, since very few other European countries seem prepared to lift a finger to help Italy at present. That is a very creditable move by the United Kingdom Government. But does she not wonder whether the USA is quite as isolated as several commentators have claimed? CO₂ emissions in the United States are dropping faster than in almost any other country, admittedly from a very high level, whereas in Germany they are rising, which needs to be taken into account before one enters into too much condemnation of President Trump on that.

Finally, neither my noble friend nor the Statement mentioned where America and Russia may just be getting to over safer zones in Syria. It looks as if there is some progress there at last, which should be welcomed. Would she also explain to the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats that the EU-Japan trade deal is a great thing but is by no means settled yet, and that it is a bit early to start claiming triumph and glory for it?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank my noble friend for covering a range of issues. We certainly called for changes to make the trading system more effective and quicker to act, and for all WTO members to take more responsibility for complying with the rules, but of course we made clear our firm commitment to free trade. The Prime Minister also discussed further aid to Italy, which is facing real problems in terms of the migrants who are coming over at the moment. We indeed welcomed the US-Russian agreement in relation to Syria: we obviously welcome any initiative that contributes to a reduction in violence in Syria and we hope that all parties will engage to this end. A genuine cessation of hostilities is fundamental to progress towards the inclusive political settlement that we will continue to work towards.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, on the much vaunted US trade deal announcement, did the Minister notice that four days ago at the G20, President Trump announced a very big, very important deal with the Russians on a joint cybersecurity unit? Did she further notice that that did not last 72 hours—it was abandoned last night? What inference does she draw regarding the reliability of such proclamations following joint photo calls and press conferences by the American President and others?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I made quite clear in my responses to the noble Baroness, we are at a very early stage. Working groups have been set up and discussions are going on, but we are at an early stage, and we shall continue to talk to the Americans.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement omitted something that was in the G20 leaders’ declaration—nothing to do with Brexit, for once: the growing threat that antimicrobial resistance represents to public health and economic development. The leaders made various recommendations, of which an important one was a new R&D collaboration hub and examining how to give incentives to encourage new antibiotics on to the market. I declare an interest in that my husband survived—just—a very serious case of sepsis. More than 40,000 people a year in this country die of sepsis. He also chairs a London health trust which deals with TB patients. Half of TB patients with resistance are in G20 countries. What are the Government going to do to follow up on that aspect of the summit?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We made clear at the summit the imperative to tackle global health threats such as antimicrobial resistance, that research funding alone will not solve the problem and that we must in parallel develop incentives for pharmaceutical companies to bring new drugs to market. The publication of the G20-commissioned report, Tackling Antimicrobial Resistance, Ensuring Sustainable R&D, means that we have a clear way forward looking to the Argentinian G20 presidency next year and beyond. We will continue to work with our international partners on that. We have also committed £50 million towards a global AMR innovation fund, which will target investment in underinvested areas of research and development.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement and the Government’s continued commitment to tackling modern-day slavery. I am particularly grateful for the commitment to cultivate a radically new global and co-ordinated approach to this problem, which traps 46 million people in conditions that deprive them of their God-given dignity. Can the Minister give an assurance that they will put the victim at the centre of this new global approach and that it will enlist the support and help of the Churches’ global networks, which are already beginning to mobilise through the Santa Marta Group and the Clewer initiative to condemn this abomination, which Pope Francis has rightly called a crime against humanity?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the right reverend Prelate. Tackling human trafficking and modern slavery remains a top priority of this Government. We are very grateful for all the work that the Church does internationally in this important area. The leaders of the G20 countries agreed with the Prime Minister that we need to take immediate and effective measures to eliminate modern slavery, child labour and forced labour from global supply chains, and we called on our G20 partners to follow our lead in working with businesses at home to ensure that they report any modern slavery in their supply chains. As the Statement made clear, this is a personal priority of the Prime Minister and one that she will continue to push among our G20 colleagues.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness about the phrase in the Statement that we must reform the world trading system,

“so it is better able to resolve disputes”.

What proposals did Her Majesty’s Government put forward better to resolve trade disputes? Does she believe that the United Kingdom will be in a better position to advance that cause outside the European Union than inside?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We want to champion this agenda. We called for change and will be working with colleagues in advance of a meeting later in the year to develop proposals. Good progress has been made. The trade facilitation agreement that came into force earlier this year will benefit UK exporters through its customs reforms, and could boost global trade by up to $1 trillion every year. We are clear that the WTO must remain the foundation of the global trading system, but we need to work together to improve it.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, I note that the Minister has failed to answer my noble friend’s question regarding the blatant misrepresentation of Sadiq Khan by the American President. It should have been raised face to face. Does the Prime Minister want to remain in Europol and Eurojust? What conversations have there been with the nuclear and health industries about the Government’s stated position and the Prime Minister’s decision, and wanting to leave Euratom? Can I have the details please?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Baroness will be aware that Euratom and the EU share a common institutional framework which make them uniquely legally joined. So, when we gave formal notification of our intention to leave the EU, we also started a process for leaving Euratom, and the exact future relationship will be subject to negotiations with our EU partners. Of course, we want to maintain the relationship, and indeed, a number of other non-EU countries do so, and we will be working to achieve that. I responded in relation to Sadiq Khan and said that the Prime Minister will continue to support him; I can go no further nor give more information. On the noble Baroness’s other point, I will need to write to her.

Security in the UK

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note (Continued)

17:21

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, even just a few years ago it would have seemed slightly surprising that a dotcom entrepreneur was speaking in a debate about national security. Now it would seem surprising if I were not. In fact, I am looking forward to contributing as a new member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I also declare my interest as a director of Twitter and co-founder of Doteveryone, a charity fighting for a fairer internet.

The world has changed irrevocably and irrefutably with the immensely rapid rise of the internet and digital technologies. When Brent Hoberman and I started Lastminute.com 20 years ago, we were grappling with the early technologies to make credit card payments safe on the web, and the largest cloud we faced was the drama that the potential of the millennium bug was presenting. Now we face a set of complex and interrelated challenges unprecedented in human history, and all exaggerated by the global and borderless nature of the technology that is woven so deeply into our everyday lives.

There are many themes relating to security and it would take far more time than I have today to describe even just what has happened in recent history. Look at what we have faced in the last few months: NHS data breaches; WannaCry ransom attacks; ATMs hijacked; fake news; Jihadi content on YouTube. Now let us think for a moment of a potential future: more use of big data; autonomous vehicles hitting our roads; the internet of things being implemented all over the place; and more and more machine learning, underpinning all our systems.

I want to tick off three areas: first, the role of the large tech platforms; secondly, the levels of digital understanding in Parliament; and thirdly, the wider digital security of our citizens. First, on the large technology businesses—the so-called platform businesses —I am the last person to rush to the defence of the monopolies that dominate our consumer internet. Indeed, it is one of the greatest surprises of my life that more of the original promise of the web, to redistribute and enable many more voices to be heard, has not been fulfilled. Five large companies dominate our online world and they have unimaginable power: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft.

However, I find the lack of sophisticated debate about the internet and security in the media—and, in parallel, the knee-jerk reaction by parliamentarians—extremely serious. Too often, all the internet is lumped together and blamed for an attack in the real world. It has recently been felt that, as long as we turned the internet off, we would all be safe. This weekend, I was lucky enough to hear John Kerry give a masterful Ditchley lecture in which he highlighted this point, calling for elected representatives to be honest with us all about the real causes of extremism—and he specifically talked about social media. He reminded the audience that the young people demonstrating in Tahrir Square during the Arab spring organised themselves using Twitter, and they were not terrorists. They needed the anonymity of social media to stay safe. As Professor Peter Neumann and Dr Shiraz Maher have written earlier this year, big social media platforms have cracked down on jihadist accounts, with the result that most jihadists are now using end-to-end encrypted messenger platforms, such as Telegram. This has not solved the problem, it has just made it different. Moreover, few people are radicalised exclusively online; blaming social media platforms is politically convenient and intellectually lazy.

As we have heard, some of the big tech businesses have now come together to form the global internet forum to continue to fight extremism. They will work on four strands. First, there will be sharing and developing new software to detect terror-related content. I must spend a moment explaining that this is harder than many realise. To use Twitter, an example that I know well, if we run an algorithm that we believe has 90% accuracy in finding inappropriate content, we might wrongly remove 50 million tweets—at 90% accuracy. Secondly, they will research bringing academics, industry and government together to share intelligence on the nature and scale of problems. There will be knowledge-sharing with smaller companies, as many tech companies find themselves suddenly with huge user bases and without the infrastructure to deal with those new legal and policy issues. This group will share best practice and help them to set up internal systems. Lastly, it will focus on counter-speech, boosting efforts by working in communities.

The noble Lord, Lord King, talked of the German Government’s recent decision to impose massive fines on these businesses. Although I believe that that might be the wrong solution and hard to implement, it is imperative that Governments hold those companies’ feet to the fire and make no apologies for them. They have been too slow to realise the gravity of the content created on their watch. Nevertheless, we cannot undermine a free and secure internet for political expediency, or allow the systems underpinning our daily lives to be weakened. It was refreshing to hear Robert Hannigan, the ex-head of GCHQ, speak so eloquently just this morning on Radio 4 about why the idea of a so-called “back door” into encryption is flawed and shows the gap between the reality of this dangerous activity online and perception.

That brings me to my second point. How will we ensure that we make the right decisions if our parliamentarians do not have the experience from which to understand these issues? I find it hard, and I have devoted my life to the technology sector. I believe that the gap between innovations driving the pace of change in citizens’ lives and the ability of policymakers to keep up is one of the most pressing questions that we face. Do we need new global institutions? Do we need more-focused parliamentary education programmes? As a local example, Doteveryone, the charity that I started, runs an MP mentoring programme; a small cohort of MPs were matched with digital mentors to help to increase their knowledge. It was a huge success. Corporate boards now have digital security in all its forms as a top priority. Compared to a few years ago, it would be as unacceptable if a CEO claimed that she did not understand its seriousness as it would be if she said that she did not understand the balance sheet. This has to be true in the public sector, too. Every new Minister should have the tools to ask the right questions when they start a new brief or run a new department; only then will we avoid such a situation as the mammoth failure to upgrade departmental software witnessed in the NHS.

Finally, I was very struck by research that I read about at the weekend, undertaken by Haifa University. Do random cyberattacks increase feelings of anxiety and panic? It is surprising to me that that was the first such study of the wider impact of cyberattacks; it is unsurprising that the results overwhelmingly showed that when an attack happens cortisol levels are raised and people immediately feel more anxious. Perhaps most interestingly, those feelings then led to a formation of more-militant political beliefs.

I end with that, as we are only at the beginning of understanding how these cyberthreats will affect us all. Noble Lords will have heard me talk before about the urgent need to increase skills in citizens who do not understand technology, but that is not enough. We must be relentless in encouraging digital understanding at all levels, for everyone. Only then will we be able to talk honestly about the threats that we face and make the right decisions, both individually and nationally, to keep us safe. I fervently believe in the power of an open internet to help in this endeavour. We cannot allow an already fearful public to become more fearful of technology. I urge the Minister to do what she can to tone down the alarmist rhetoric that comes from many parts of government and the media so that we can engage in a well-informed debate.

17:30

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this has been a well-informed—one might even say learned—debate, and I hope that I do not bring the tone down too far. It is obviously a huge topic, so I am going to pick a few issues where I feel the Government have got it extremely badly wrong. I would have added digital issues as well if I knew more about them, but as it is I have four.

The first issue is Prevent. No one would disagree that prevention is better than cure, but at the same time you have to make sure that what you put in place actually functions. I argue that Prevent does not: it has far too many failings. It has targeted too many innocent people, including children. At this stage, it does not have the respect of the communities that it is meant to be engaging with and has become counterproductive. Part of the problem is that it is vague and prone to misapplication, particularly because its definition of extremism is so broad. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, QC, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, has described the definition as “hopeless”. Despite a declared intention to introduce a counterextremism Bill, there is not yet a statutory definition of extremism. The only working definition of it is the Prevent one:

“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values”.

That is just too broad and encompasses far too many people.

The NGO Liberty has done a very good briefing on Prevent, which I can pass on to noble Lords. Its three recommendations are: repeal the statutory duty, which has absolutely failed and brought Prevent into disrepute; drop the focus on non-violent extremism; and establish an independent review of Prevent. We have had something close to this from the Prime Minister, but we really do need to move on with it. We need a community-led, collaborative approach to tackling extremism. The vast majority of people want to help to defeat terrorism, and we tend to ignore them. What the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, called a “culture of resistance” is exactly what we need. We need to engage with people and get them to trust us.

My second issue is the Government’s declared intention to establish a commission for countering extremism. We still do not know much about this commission, but we understand it will be statutory and called “the Commission for Countering Extremism”. Apparently it will,

“identify examples of extremism and expose them”.

It also includes proposals to regulate online spaces with a digital charter. We already have laws that fulfil these needs; we do not need any more. We need to use the laws we have and resource them properly. Part of the problem is that the agencies responsible just do not have the resources to do the job. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill QC, has said that we do not need new laws to tackle the current terrorist threat. Despite this, the Government are still going to try to legislate and not even just for terrorism, but for what they call “non-violent extremism”. What does that mean? Is it ideas that are difficult, unpleasant or offensive or just ideas that the Government disagree with? The simple fact is that it is impossible to agree a definition of what constitutes an extremist. We all have very different ideas—personally, I would argue that the DUP is an extremist organisation. It is quite dangerous to set up a commission responsible for defining, identifying and exposing people whom it thinks are extreme. As I have said in your Lordships’ House before, I am concerned that we will create our own distinctively British brand of McCarthyism.

I also have concerns about press freedom. It is surely a fundamental British value that our press is free and reports on all our strange ways, whether we are politicians or members of the public. I also have concerns that people will be seen as criminals through thought crime. They will not actually commit a crime; they will just be thinking about it. However, that does not make them criminals.

I am also curious to know whether we will have our own equivalent of the European Court of Justice. I think I saw something today about our having an interim relationship with it. I would like to know more about that, if possible. Where will people take their cases when they feel that the Government have been intrusive or that they have been overpoliced? Where does the DUP sit in deciding all these things? How much of a voice does it have? I would like some answers to those points. At the moment, there are more questions than answers, so anything that we can be told would be great.

My third issue concerns policing. Given the more than decade and a half during which I was a severe critic of the Met, when I sat on its police authority and then on a policing committee, I did not think that I would defend it quite so fiercely today. It has experienced massive budget cuts, which were far too fast and far too hard, which meant that no rational decisions could be made. The Met had to cut many millions of pounds every year. Personally, I think that has created a Met police force which perhaps is no longer quite fit for purpose. Although one might argue that its budget is not changing, if the budget is static while costs are rising, the force is much worse off.

The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime said recently that the Met already has a budget shortfall of £170 million for national counterterrorism work. That is work over and above its responsibility as a police force for the capital. That money is normally expected to come from the Government, so will the Government please pay that back to the Met? I would like to know that. Personally, I think that the Government should, of course, pay that, but somehow the magic money tree cannot be found when it is a question of Londoners’ safety. I find that quite offensive. If we are to forge better relations with communities so that we can have vital intelligence on all kinds of crime, including terrorism, many more community police officers are needed. That means understanding how we can prevent attacks on our freedoms. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, called neighbourhood policing. There just is not enough of it anymore, which means that communities do not have an easy way to express their fears and concerns if they think they are a little too mild to report officially.

My last issue concerns Saudi Arabia. As a politician, I understand that we sometimes have to work with some very unpleasant people and we have to sit down with them and negotiate with them. We might loathe them, but we have to keep a dialogue going. However, we do not have to sell them arms. Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship. It is one of the world’s worst Governments in terms of human rights abuses. We should not be selling it arms. Today the High Court ruled that the case brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade was not valid and that it was perfectly legal for the Government to sell Saudi Arabia arms. I would argue that, if it is legal, the law needs to be changed. We also all know that “legal” does not mean ethical— tax avoidance springs to mind, for example, in this context.

The Labour leader has said:

“If Theresa May is serious about cutting off financial and ideological support for terrorism, she should publish the suppressed report on foreign funding of UK-based extremism and have difficult conversations with Saudi Arabia, not hug Saudi and allied Gulf states even closer”.


It is very embarrassing that we are selling arms to a country that is responsible for human rights abuses in its neighbour Yemen. It is bombing hospitals, schools and wedding parties. How do we square with our conscience the fact that our arms are being used in that way? I would like to know a little more about publishing that report. We heard a little about that earlier, but I would like to know more about publishing it. Is it true that the Saudi royal family is involved in some way in the foreign funding of extremist terrorist groups here, because that is what people appear to be saying? It would be good to know that. If it does involve Saudi financing of groups here in the UK, that is absolutely unforgivable, and the Government need to do something about it.

Does the Minister truly believe that we need more laws to fight terrorism, or does she accept that we have enough laws and we just have to apply them properly? We already have a lot of intrusion into our private lives, and we have a significant amount of repression of people who think a bit differently. I find that unacceptable. Theresa May herself said something about celebrating the diversity of Britain, but everything the Government are doing seems to be closing down that option.

Finally, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, how far are we prepared to go in reducing our own freedoms as a response to people who are trying to take them away? It seems to be the exact opposite of what we should be doing—we should be celebrating our freedom and allowing more of it rather than closing it down.

17:40

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus on one aspect of what is a very timely, important and thoughtful debate. We are, rightly, discussing the security situation in the United Kingdom; my key point is that we cannot assure that security by action in the UK alone.

Almost all the recent terrorist attacks in this country and in other parts of Europe have involved people who either travelled abroad to be radicalised or who have been inspired by foreign-based terrorist groups. Take, for example, the Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Abedi. He seems to have been radicalised during a series of trips to Libya, and—according to the French Interior Minister—also travelled to Syria. One of the London Bridge attackers, Rachid Redouane, had also spent time in Libya before he travelled to Ireland and then to the UK. Another of that group, Youssef Zaghba, had made several efforts while he lived in Italy to get to Syria; he had been stopped, and that information had been put on the EU database. This fits with the pattern we have seen in other attacks in Europe. Most of the terrorists involved have travelled between EU countries and have crossed the EU external border to go to countries like Syria, Iraq or Libya.

When I was ambassador to France, I lived through the awful, large-scale attacks in Paris on the Stade de France, the Bataclan and other places. Most of those attackers had been radicalised in Syria. The attacks were planned in Raqqa, mounted in Molenbeek, in the suburbs of Brussels—which is, I think, where the guns came from—and were carried out in the streets of Paris with almost no warning. This, therefore, is the reality we face—it is trans-border terrorism.

Clearly, getting at the heart of the terrorist threat by tackling the ISIS group is essential. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that the fall of Mosul must be a good thing as regards closing down the capacity of ISIS to operate, and if Raqqa falls shortly, as looks likely, that will be good as well. However, security experts have warned us that in the short term this will lead to brutalised and radicalised European citizens who are currently in the region coming back home. The EU terrorism expert said recently that he thought there were probably 2,000 European citizens still in the region, and Sir Julian King, our EU Counterterrorism Commissioner, said in London recently—the noble Baroness also used this figure in her opening speech—that roughly 850 British citizens have travelled to that region, of which he thought that a quarter or so remain there. Whatever the numbers, we face the prospect, as the bastions of ISIS fall, of quite a large number of people flowing back to this country and to other countries in Europe, and then to countries in north Africa.

I welcome the fact, which has been confirmed this afternoon, that the Prime Minister raised this issue of co-ordination with other partners at the G20 summit, but the fact remains that this risks being another major burden on the security authorities, which are already hard pressed. This is surely a moment for maximum co-operation among our EU partners. I welcome what the Minister said in her opening statement about the priority that we give to EU co-operation on terrorism, but I looked in vain for that to be among what the Government now seem to have agreed as the priority issues for negotiation in Brussels. As noble Lords know, those three issues are: first, EU citizens, which is a very good point to raise; secondly, the Irish border; and, thirdly, the money in the financial settlement. I am sure that, as my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller said, the closest exchange of information and intelligence will go on between our security and intelligence agencies, but it seems to me crucial that we maintain the UK’s institutional participation in the EU’s existing mechanisms—for example, the Schengen Information System, the databases of fingerprints and DNA, and the European arrest warrant. When I was ambassador, I saw that in action, with potential terrorists and criminals wanted for prosecution here being brought back to this country.

Our security agencies and our police force are doing an extraordinary job. I had the privilege of working very closely with our intelligence community when I was the National Security Adviser. However, they cannot keep the country safe without the most effective possible international networks. Frankly, I am surprised to find that the Brexit negotiations do not seem to be giving priority to the continuation of co-operation on terrorism and security with our EU partners. At a time when the threat from returning fighters looks like growing, that surely risks leaving a serious gap in our defences.

17:46

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I start by making a small procedural point. It is awfully important that Ministers try to answer debates in your Lordships’ House, and that is why I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Williams will be answering this one. We want to hear her views; we do not just want to hear the standard opinion of Home Office officials, who all too often regard any outside view as a rather impertinent interference and reflection on the competence with which they deal with their mandate. One of the best Ministers whom I have known in the 25 years that I have been in this House was the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He took charge of and sorted out, rather than defended, the Defra administrative shambles over the payment of Brussels money to British farmers. However, speaking as a farmer, I suggest that national security is perhaps rather more important than that.

When, on 27 June, we debated Home Office affairs in the Queen’s Speech debate, I raised a number of points. Understandably the Minister could not answer them because, first, it was a different Minister and, secondly, there had been about 50 speakers with five minutes each. Last week I rang up the department of my noble friend Lady Williams to ask whether there was any intention of giving me any sort of answer in writing—the Minister answering the other debate had said that he would—and I was told that I would get an email to tell me whether the Minister would be commenting or answering, but so far there has been radio silence. Therefore, I do not apologise to the Minister for again referring to some of the points that I made on that occasion.

I suggest that the greatest threat to our security in the UK comes from political Islam and, in particular, from its military wing, Islamic State or ISIS. It has dwarfed most of the earlier jihadist organisations such as al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab and so on, and has sought to embrace them. Since IS announced its arrival three years ago with the aim of creating a worldwide caliphate, we have seen enough of its brutal methods to be able to classify it as a fundamentally fascist movement clad in the cloak of Islam. Until religious Islam strips away that cloak, exposing and denouncing ISIS, or Daesh, as the contemptible terrorist outfit that most Arabs in the Middle East as well as the Iranians, Turks and many others regard it, we in the UK will be limited as to what we can do to protect ourselves from its influence and activities.

IS also has a political cover. In this, it is remarkably similar to Soviet Bolshevism. It is not communism that is being sought but Islamist theocracy administering sharia law, which is every bit as threatening as the now discarded belief of communism once was.

Along with the threat from political Islam is the huge challenge that, very largely, it has spawned: the mass migration of people. I remind your Lordships of the figures from the UNHCR. Worldwide, 65.6 million people were forcibly displaced at the end of 2016. Of these, 22.5 million were seeking safety across national borders as refugees, which is the highest number since the UNHCR was founded in 1950 to deal with the tragic legacy of World War II. The biggest number of refugees is 5.5 million from Syria, followed by 3.3 million from South Sudan. At the end of last year, 2.8 million people were still seeking asylum. By far the largest number—over 80% of refugees—were in developing or middle-income countries, with some of the poorest countries hosting huge numbers: Turkey, 2.9 million; Pakistan, 1.3 million; and little Lebanon, 1.1 million, which is almost 20% of its population. Yet Saudi Arabia, which is about 200 times larger in scale and with three times the national income per head of Lebanon, has virtually none.

This migration is not a European challenge; it is a global challenge. That explains why the EU has been so ineffective at meeting it. Although being in the Schengen area has its advantages, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, referred to, as the UK is outside this area we are, to some extent, shielded from the insensitive fumbling of the EU Commission, with its national quotas for refugees which have been largely ignored by the Schengen states.

Meanwhile, we should have the greatest sympathy for countries that have had their capacity to receive people overwhelmed by the numbers. I am thinking in particular of Italy and Greece, two of the most generous-hearted countries in Europe. Already, Italy has received more than 200,000 refugees—some 90% of them are still in emergency accommodation. By June this year, more than 60,000 had crossed the sea from Tripoli to Italy, which is a 25% increase on the same period last year. Tragically, more than 1,600 refugees have lost their lives in the crossing this year. Stranded on the tiny Greek islands are 14,000 refugees, sometimes in very poor conditions. Not surprisingly, there is growing resentment at the well-meaning but misguided rescue operations of various NGOs, which have in practice offered a ferry service and filled the pockets of the people traffickers who dispatch their victims in fragile coracles to Italy and Greece. The answer of course is that all these unfortunate victims must be rescued when in peril on the sea, but they should be returned to where they originally took passage. Some noble Lords may be aware that I have four times proposed in this House—on 9 July 2015, 23 May, 16 June and 29 October 2016—a detailed scheme for that to happen under UN auspices. Obviously, I will not repeat it again except to say that several countries are now taking an interest, but so far, sadly, HMG are not.

I now move on to some of my specific suggestions for mitigating the threat to our security today. My first point is that HMG should always make an independent proportionality assessment of the greater national good when there is a clash between the interests of national security with civil or human rights. We cannot afford the cost or risk of some of the cases in recent years where courts have had to take a precise and limited view on rights with little regard to security. We simply cannot allow another Abu Hamza, who was briefly detained in Britain in 2004 and then it took 10 years until he was sent to the United States in 2014 and sent to prison for life in January 2015.

To follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, I believe that British jihadists who have travelled to take part in IS operations anywhere in the world should not be allowed back into this country whether they are British citizens or not—by naturalisation or birth. Their passports should be cancelled and their citizenship revoked. They have made their choice and if they have not died from it, they should live with it. We cannot afford to take the risk and pay the price of doing otherwise.

We also need greatly to tighten our borders. That must mean that the Passport Office should know much more about what passports other than British passports people hold. I remember pointing that out to Cressida Dick about three years ago when she was still involved in anti-terrorism in the Met. She expressed astonishment that the Passport Office did not have a record of other passports that British passport holders held. The Passport Office should also temporarily invalidate British passports held by anybody who is in prison or on bail. One of the London Bridge attackers was apparently on bail. That would mean automatic notification of instances such as that by the courts to the passport authorities. There must also be automatic electronic cancellation of passports when death is notified to the registrar. At the moment, the trouble is that a lot of passports belonging to dead people drift around and are used by living people.

It is most important that there is an automatic recording of people when they leave the country, which should be kept for at least five years, as well as of people arriving. It is absurd at present that the Home Office says, “We record departure only when it is intelligence-led”. That has not worked and it is not enough. We do not necessarily need national identity cards—I have never been keen on the cards—but we need a national identity number. We have a multiplicity of numbers, but we should all have one number that identifies a person with biometrics. Those should not be on the card, because that is quite dangerous—clever terrorists can fake cards and put biometrics on to them to say, “I am who I say I am”, but there should be a central register of the biometrics. The key thing is the number. We really must reconsider that. We also need new standards of positive vetting, as we used to have in the Cold War days, to make sure that terrorists—it has been said that there are many in the UK—cannot get into sensitive positions.

Finally, the Government really have to review the status and the position of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain. Its links with jihad are not unlike those that Sinn Fein once had with the IRA in Ireland; it is a rather similar outfit. The MB was declared a threat to national security three years ago by Sir John Jenkins, then the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, when he was asked to report on the organisation by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister. As noble Lords probably know, it is partly the problem of the Muslim Brotherhood which is causing the Qatar-Saudi conflict because the Saudis are Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood is an alternative source of information and competition. Sadly, they are both guilty of having funded a great deal of terrorism.

Further on the Muslim Brotherhood, let us not forget that the organisation started in Egypt in 1928. Its members killed an Egyptian Prime Minister in 1949 and then killed President Sadat in 1981 because he was a peacemaker. President al-Sisi of Egypt is fighting very hard to prevent the formation of another Muslim Brotherhood Government because, frankly, the ultimate thing about all this sort of terrorism is to separate religion from the state. We cannot have the politicisation of religion in order to secure monopoly power in any country.

18:01

[Lord Desai (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord because we entered this House together some 26 years ago. I shall touch in my speech on some of the things he has said. I should start by saying that I have absolutely no practical knowledge of anything that anyone can think of, but I am a social scientist. In the wake of 7/7 I wrote a book about terrorism called Rethinking Islamism and I shall draw upon it in my contribution.

The central question that we have to ask, because it is one that goes on reverberating, is this. What is it that makes people who are born and bred in Britain become jihadists? The definition of extremism is where someone does not agree with fundamental British values. We have to remember two things. The first is that the way we see our history is not the way the world sees our history. The world has a different perspective on British history from us. I have had the good fortune to come from a former colony and to have settled here for many years, so I know both sides of the reading of history.

How many of us know that two years from now will be the centenary of Jallianwala Bagh? I would bet that very few people here know what Jallianwala Bagh is, but it means a lot in India. Unarmed people were fired on with machine guns by soldiers led by a British Army officer. That does not matter to us, but you could easily turn—I am deliberately using a non-Muslim example here—a Hindu boy, born and bred in this country, into a sort of terrorist by telling him, “The time has come to wreak revenge for this enmity of 100 years ago”. That is exactly what is going on in Islamism.

In his speech the noble Lord, Lord King, contrasted the Irish question with current terrorism. He said that in the Irish question we knew the nationalists and the unionists, and that religion was never the issue: it was about politics and history. The Reverend Doctor Ian Paisley was a scholar who wrote many books about theology. We did not worry about any of his books; we worried about the fact that he was a politician. Difficult though it is, we need to forget that it is a religious problem.

The problem is that the way Muslims see the history of the last 100 years is very different from the way we read it. The other day in our Chamber we debated the Balfour Declaration. Be prepared for a huge terrorist attack on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, because it is not thought to be as good a thing by most of the Muslim population as it is by most of us. We have to face these things.

One hundred years ago the Ottoman Empire was breaking up and we had the Sykes-Picot agreement, which divided up the Ottoman Empire even before it was defeated. Places such as Syria and Iraq and various countries were created. Later on they were assigned after the war to either Britain or France. We have forgotten that history, but they remember it. They have not been reconciled with what happened to the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the British and the French. I have read a lot about this.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, pointed out, Islamism and terrorism are not new. A lot of Islamism was a war within Islamic countries, one faction against another, but then it became globalised and turned against us. After the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, America subsidised the Taliban, which later became al-Qaeda. They defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan by making them religious fanatics and telling them, “This is your jihad. Throw out the Soviets from Afghanistan”. That al-Qaeda may now have become ISIS.

ISIS may have disappeared, but it will become something else because the central complaint and grievance of the Muslim population of the Middle East has not been solved—I do not think it can be. The fact that one of the longest-lasting empires disappeared—an empire that lasted 700 years and which took its origin directly from the Prophet—means that the caliphate disappeared. That is why when ISIS was set up the dream was to have a caliphate again. Of course, now the caliphate is gone. It is very hard for us to understand why this caliphate is so important, but it would be like having the Catholic Church without the Pope. In that situation, there would be Catholics who would want to have a Pope back. That is why there is a big desire in the Muslim world to have a caliphate back.

This is a complex story through which many boys and girls are being converted. Yes, they are old stories; maybe they are wrongly read and maybe they are a wrong reading of history, but read what Osama bin Laden wrote. If you do not want to read his original, read my account of what he wrote in my book. Systematically, the idea is that this is a war that has been going on since the Crusades. The last phase was in the early 20th century, when the Ottoman Empire was broken up, and this is where we are now.

The borders of Syria and Iraq are all completely imagined. These lines were drawn on a map in the Foreign Office and later implemented. These injustices of history we of course cannot now correct, but I urge that whoever is working on Prevent should know something about this history. We need to know our history as other people see us, because if we do not see it that way we will never understand why they go against us. They do so because they no longer believe our pretensions that we were just, liberal and kind, and that we helped them come out of savagery or whatever it is. It is not even about Wahhabism, because that is a war of Muslims against other Muslims. It is the idea that there was this ugly battle at the end of which the Muslims lost decisively when the Ottoman Empire disappeared, and they want to resume the battle.

We have to treat this terrorism as a more or less long-run fact; it will not go away. We have not even begun to understand where these things come from. They are certainly are not going to go away. We should be able to educate ourselves a bit better and understand what drives the other side. If we understand that, we will be able to be more self-critical and not just assume that such attacks are unjustified. That is not the way that other people read this history.

In the past few months, at least since Donald Trump was elected, people have been worried about the future of the liberal order and about its collapse and so on, but those who have praised the liberal order have been very uncritical as to why it is so good. It does not seem so good to the rest of the world. It may seem very good to the north Atlantic region, but the rest of the world does not think that it is great. We have to be more self-critical; at least, we have be more self-educated, so as to understand what drives our children, born and bred here, to accept this other version of history.

That is all I can say; I do not really think that much more than that will be useful. A knowledge of the history of the past 100 years, especially that of Islamism—

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

In analysing the history of the events we are facing at the moment, the noble Lord seems to pay no attention to the involvement of the Sunni-Shia conflict. Following the invasion of Iraq and the deposition of Saddam Hussein, the Shia took their opportunity to settle a lot of old scores. There seems to be considerable evidence that the origins of ISIS were the remains of Saddam’s Sunni army. That showed when they managed to acquire a lot of the Iraqi army’s American-gifted equipment, and had the skill to operate it extremely efficiently. ISIS started not in an attack against the United Kingdom or the United States, but in a determination to take over Iraq and as much of Syria as it could and to establish a Sunni supremacy. Is that not an analysis of the history which is well worth remembering?

[Lord Desai]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I had not even come to the 21st century, but I quite agree. It is true is that there are battles within Islam, between Sunni and Shia, that have been going on for quite a while, and that is part of the Qatar-Saudi Arabia battle right now. The noble Lord is also quite right about the way ISIS was set up. However, the story starts much before ISIS. It starts with the Muslim Brotherhood and afterwards with what happened to clean out the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, as the noble Lord no doubt knows, where jihadists were created and financed by us to remove the Soviets—they were given lots of drugs, arms and so on. Through that came Osama bin Laden. These attacks have been going on since the early 1990s—let us remember the first frustrated attack on the World Trade Center, then on the USS “Cole” and then on the American embassy in Kenya. They were even before we got to 9/11. I agree with the Sunni-Shia commentary, but we need to make ourselves aware of this complex history. At least, those fighting radicalisation should be aware of the broad perspective that the young, radicalised man or woman has when they want to go off and throw a bomb at us.

18:15

[Lord Watson of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, this debate invites us to take note of the current security situation in the UK. I wish to focus my remarks this evening primarily on that situation in London. However, we all know that terror can come in different forms, in different times and in different places. Innocuous white vans are driven as weapons of murder into crowds on pavements, young people out for the evening, tourists staring at Big Ben. The weapons can be knives. They have been described in this debate as low-tech: cutlery bought to slash and stab innocent and defenceless people. The weapons can be suicide bombs, carried inconspicuously and devised, as in Manchester, to tear people apart with homemade shrapnel. Terrorism is what we face anywhere, everywhere and at any time. Doubtless, those so motivated that they have no doubt are working now on the mechanics needed for atrocities to come.

Of course, we recognise and respect the expertise and the courage of those who seek to protect us. Much tribute has been paid in this debate to the police, the security services and those charged with surveillance, struggling to pin down suspects about to cross the line from murder imagined to murder realised. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, made clear in this debate, they face an awesome task. Yet there are patterns of predictability and one of these is the magnetic attraction of London to those intent on attacking symbols of our standing in the world, our way of life, our freedom from fear, our tolerance. They wish to kill to change us, to replace security with insecurity, to make us unsafe where all seems familiar and normal. And there are noticeable effects, more noticeable by the day. On stations and trains, announcements urge us to contact the authorities if we see anything suspicious or anyone acting suspiciously. On the underground we observe fellow passengers carefully and, indeed, their luggage—I certainly do. On our crowded streets, we notice individuals, not just generic groups of schoolchildren, tourists or people queuing to board trains or go to the theatre. Such individual surveillance, one of another, can be helpful and we are urged to do it, but it is not natural. We have to recognise that while people in dictatorships are always wary of each other, in a free country that is not our way, but this is an erosion, a process that is taking place.

As I said, there are patterns of predictability and we should seek to address these, so I shall turn specifically to London. I have been, for better or worse, commuting into and out of London for more than 50 years; by car, by taxi, by train and underground; as a journalist, as somebody in politics, as a businessman. I still feel, as I am sure many of us do, that it is a privilege and an excitement to come into this most populous, diverse and brilliant capital, but in recent years a strange strangulation of London has occurred and continues to do so. The roads grow narrower. Bicycle lanes, idealistically planned, now choke the roads. The crowds thicken. New and restored buildings spill out into the streets. Crowds are a magnet for terrorism. Today London makes itself vulnerable. Our arteries, if you like, have thickened. Our infrastructure is inadequate.

Last week, as an example that I personally experienced, the heat closed Paddington and reduced Waterloo to frustrating chaos, with hundreds of people crammed into carriages where the windows were sealed and the air conditioning did not work because it was hot. The temperatures were impossible and even English composure broke down. We take in silence what might make others scream. In such an environment—predictable and recurring—individuals with murder in mind could too easily grasp an opportunity or plan for it.

In this somewhat combustible environment in London, we are now told of further cuts to neighbourhood policing teams. These cuts will—must—debilitate the capital’s safer neighbourhood teams, so well described as the Met’s eyes and ears on the ground. Will the Minister consider what can be done to reverse such a policy now as a matter of urgency?

I fear that iconic London makes itself more vulnerable as people are constantly distracted by noise and muddle and the everyday battle to get from one place to the next. The drivers of black cabs are also the eyes and ears we need. Now, despite their knowledge, they struggle with ever changing constructions, constrictions and diversions. Transport for London also has a responsibility for the security situation of Londoners. We all share responsibility. The blackened ruin of Grenfell Tower by the Westway is not only testimony to the irresponsibility of the council but witness to the false assumption that cheap solutions will do.

The challenge of terrorism in the United Kingdom and in its capital will, as we all recognise, last for many years, and it may get worse. The forbearance, kindness and patience of Londoners are precious assets not to be squandered. We can all unite around the determination not to be deterred, to continue to practise a way of life envied for its freedom, but we must not allow inadequate funding of our public services, inadequate standards of protection in the use of our roads, inadequate funding for our transport infrastructure—inadequate carefulness—to jeopardise the way of life we seek to protect.

I declare an interest: the new police video released today was made by my company. It urges Britons to be alert this summer when on holiday. But the truth is that Londoners need to be alert every day and every night for as long as we can foresee, and on their behalf we, too, must become much more alert than ever before.

18:23

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, in rising to make a modest contribution to this important debate, I venture to start with the oft-repeated assertion that the first duty of any Government, regardless of their political persuasion, is to secure the safety of the realm and its citizens. Of course, an essential contribution to that vital duty is the support and funding of an efficient and functioning police force.

In the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, following no less than four terrorist incidents in recent weeks, it is right that we keep a clear mind on these matters and stand ready to increase the size of our police forces if that is thought to be necessary, or at least to ensure that they are not further reduced. As is, of course, well known, there have been some reductions in recent times brought about by budgetary constraints but I suggest that the various threats which we now face argue against further reductions for the foreseeable future. Effective policing is manpower-intensive. These further reductions from today’s levels ought to be resisted.

On 22 June last, shortly after Parliament resumed following the general election, I tabled a Question for Written Answer concerning the funds available to the Metropolitan Police for anti-terrorism operations and asked whether any additional funds are required. My noble friend Lady Williams replied to the effect that much of that information cannot be released, which of course I understand and accept, but she helpfully included in that Answer a reference to cross-government spending on anti-terrorism; in particular, she referred to a 30% increase from £11.7 billion to £15.1 billion. I would be grateful if when she comes to reply she can give me a little more information about this expenditure—for example, over what period is this increase allocated and is it a direct response to recent outrages or have these figures been in the budget for some time now?

It is, we are told, the case that the firm cap on police salaries is encouraging early retirement and discouraging effective recruitment. I hope that will be taken into account in whatever is decided with regard to public sector salaries generally. I put it to your Lordships that in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, exemplified by the Westminster Bridge outrage during which Police Constable Palmer gave his life, special considerations should apply.

A few weeks ago there was a press report to the effect that the assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan Police responsible for counterterrorism, both in London and elsewhere, I understand, had written personally to the Home Secretary, presumably on the matters upon which I have touched. When she replies can my noble friend say whether that was indeed the case and, if so, whether my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or one of her Ministers intends to reply?

I end with similar thoughts to the ones I ventured to express to your Lordships in my opening remarks. It is the duty of every Government, regardless of their political persuasion, to make proper provision on the safety and security of the realm. In the light of recent events, I urge my noble friends to keep their compliance with this essential requirement under continuous and careful review. I look forward to my noble friend’s reply.

18:27

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I will be forgiven if I start by saying that the concept of security can be very subjective. I think that if you talk today to thousands of people in Britain living in multi-storey blocks, their primary concern about security is about whether they are going to live securely and stably in their homes. I do not think it takes very much imagination to begin to draw lines between that reality, all that lies behind it and the issues which have preoccupied us in this debate.

I am one of those who believe absolutely fundamentally that ultimately the battle against terrorism is a battle for hearts and minds. In the context of this debate, we have had some very significant contributions from very experienced people which have strengthened my conviction. I was greatly heartened when the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, made the point that we have to look at the context and see the interrelationships and cannot look at the subject on too narrow a front. To hear her say that was indeed powerful.

In the same way, I thought my noble friend Lord Harris was making much the same point when he said that, in the end, there can be no absolute security and we should not pander to false illusions that there can be. What matters is society making rational choices about how it is going to allocate its resources: how much should go into building a society worth living in and how much should go into policing that society. That argument will never go away. It is a very real argument and has effects on people.

I have observed in my own life that terrorism thrives when there is a climate of ambivalence around, and of alienation and disaffection. Substantial numbers of people are not leaping out of their beds every morning and saying “These horrible things, how can they happen, how can we get these people and obliterate them?”. Many of them are saying, “How absolutely horrible these things are, and we would not be able to participate in anything like that ourselves, but perhaps, just perhaps, these people are on our side”. We have to face up to that. There is therefore a social dimension to terrorism and how we tackle it. There needs to be very intensive concentration on the provision of social infrastructure, particularly where communities find themselves in the midst of a large and growing number of people from completely different backgrounds. There must be good schools, good hospitals and good policing.

Several noble Lords have stressed in the debate today the importance of community policing, which is music to my ears, because I just do not understand how we can seriously take a stand against terrorism if we are not giving priority to community policing. It is not just about policemen going into the community to be the eyes and ears of the state in that community; it is about policemen building relationships with that community in which they actually enlist the community and create a shared sense of responsibility for ensuring the security that is necessary.

But we also have to be very clear about counterproductivity. I sometimes think that my biggest concern about the fight against terrorism is the danger of counterproductivity. Whatever the nature of terrorism and whatever its motivation, it is determined to reveal our society as hypocritical and ill founded, and our institutions as not worth having. We have to be very careful that we do not play into that sinister and manipulative argument. That is why, however tough the challenges and however real the immediate pressure on people in the front line, we have to maintain the highest standards of human rights and to ensure that our system of justice remains as transparent as it can possibly be. Of course I am a realist and realise that some of that justice cannot be transparent in a fight against terrorism, but we have to make sure that “because it cannot always be” does not become a convenient way of beginning to say more and more that the justice system is not going to be transparent. It needs to be transparent, and people need to have confidence in the system of justice. All these things matter tremendously, and I thought the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made a very wise and thoughtful intervention about how we will win the battles in the fight against terrorism.

There is also an international dimension. I cannot accept that what we are doing in foreign policy has no implications for stability here. I was talking about alienation and disaffection. If we parade the significant part that we played in bringing about the arms trade treaty and claim credit for it but then refuse to stand up to the Saudi Arabians for what they are doing in Yemen, that has a direct relationship with the growth of alienation and dissolution, which becomes prey to manipulation by terrorist recruiters.

We have to be consistent, transparent and convincing in our foreign policy. Even journalists are now picking up the reality that, whatever may be said about victory in Mosul, this is about distorted minds: it is not just a physical defeat in battle. The terrorists will melt away and reassemble in other situations. Until we diminish the conceptions in the mind, we will always be on the defensive.

I applaud the police, the fire services—my God, I applaud the intelligence services—and all those involved, the medical and ambulance services and the rest, but this can become a sentimental rant. If we really value these people, how are we demonstrating that? How are we giving them pride of place in our society? We have been incredibly well blessed by the loyalty and devotion of our public services in a situation that has become intolerable given the great success, triumph and esteem of those who make money over those who serve the community.

All these things have to be brought together. There is no simple approach in which we can take one segment on its own and stand it up: they all interrelate.

I am most concerned that in all this we understand that, whether we like it or not, we are born into an international, interdependent community. There is no way that we can have an intelligence stand against extremism and terrorism on a national basis. Any effective stand must be made with others; we have to work with others. I have had the privilege of listening on Select Committees to people working in the area of policing and other spheres on an international basis. Let us call a spade a spade. I am not trying to refight the referendum—I am one of those who, however desperately unhappy, accepts the result of the referendum. If you have a referendum, you must accept the result. But virtually every person whom I heard who operates in this sphere talking to us on Select Committees said that of course pulling out of Europe is potentially a weakening of our security and police arrangements, because crime, drugs and trafficking—certainly terrorism—are all international issues.

Some people would argue that we have to keep a sense of proportion about this: we are particularly good at our policing and intelligence; will we not be weakening our position if we get ourselves bogged down with too many people internationally? The wiser people—my impression was that they were wiser; that was probably because I agreed with them—were saying no, you are only as strong as the weakest link. If you are to have an effective operation, where there is weakness, where things are not up to scratch, you need to be working at improving the situation internationally, not running away from it.

There is a huge and incredibly complex challenge here. I come back to what I said earlier: it is a battle for hearts and minds, and minds will win. Minds are influenced by hope, having a stake in a society that is worth living in, and individuals having a future and a stake in something that matters to their families, and the rest. That is how we will win. We have to be resolute in building social solidarity.

18:40

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Government for finding time for this timely and important debate. I want to focus my remarks on the intelligence community—namely, the three intelligence services and their co-ordinating structure in Whitehall. I draw attention to the fact that I was a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee during the last Parliament.

I pay tribute, as others have done, to all those who work in our intelligence community, and in doing so I readily acknowledge that there are others in this House who know their work far better than I do. They work under sustained and relentless pressure, in some cases in conditions of personal danger, and the very nature of their business is that their work goes largely unrecognised. Day in, day out, they play a crucial role, along with their colleagues in the police and the other law enforcement agencies, in enabling the rest of us to go about our daily lives.

The intelligence community has, of course, been under huge pressure of late, and I was interested in what my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller was saying about the tempo and scale of the threat we are facing. Counterterrorism obviously remains the highest priority in the aftermath of the attacks we have seen and has naturally formed the focus of this debate. But, in parallel, we have seen an upsurge in co-ordinated, possibly state-sponsored hacking and cyberattacks, presenting new challenges to our intelligence services.

Yet, at the same time, old challenges do not fade away. In such an unstable and volatile time in world politics, the traditional need for high-grade political and economic intelligence has never been greater. Have the intelligence agencies the resources to meet this pressure? Despite the severe restrictions on public spending in recent years, the expenditure on all the three intelligence services has been, as the Minister reminded us, increased significantly, not least in the November 2015 spending review. While I think there was widespread acceptance that these increases were justified, there is, in my view, a continuing case for the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee to continue to scrutinise how these significant extra resources have been used. It should examine whether this additional expenditure has been deployed effectively across all three services, bringing them closer together, particularly in ways that not only deliver further capability but, at the same time, encourage further savings when necessary by pooling resources between the three services.

Looking more closely at the three specific priority areas that I have mentioned, let me focus first on counterterrorism. In the aftermath of the series of attacks that we have endured, it is important to recall that the intelligence services have constantly reminded us, as others have today, that we cannot be guaranteed 100% security. Tragically, there will be attacks which succeed and get through the net, with such horrific and life-changing consequences for those directly involved, their friends and families. The important thing is to learn the lessons of these incidents; it is imperative that we do so and, where possible, be seen to do so.

I welcome the appointment of David Anderson, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, to oversee a review of the handling of recent terror attacks. He knows the intelligence world and brings incisiveness and clarity to difficult issues. Has he been given a date on which to report, and will a redacted version of his review be made public? A starting point for his analysis may well be in looking again at the issues raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee in the aftermath of the brutal murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who was a member of the committee at that time.

Some of the issues may well be very relevant as we search for lessons from the recent attacks. Obviously, there were many questions then about resources, but there were also questions about process. Can MI5 progress low-priority casework even when under the huge pressure of running an increasing number of high-priority investigations? How can we deal with “self-starting terrorists”, who are increasingly security conscious in how they go about their business? As we have heard today, the question of communications service providers came up in the report; I welcome the Government’s activity in that important area. How do the agencies manage the vast amount of data on individuals not assessed as posing a risk to national security, and how do they process more effectively intelligence from local communities, which may prove vital in any investigation? All those issues were exposed in 2013, and I suggest that they may be very relevant as we look to learn lessons in 2017.

The second area for further scrutiny is in the field of cybersecurity. We have been reminded over recent months of the threat faced not only by organisations regarded as critical national infrastructure but by those further afield. The establishment of the National Cyber Security Centre has been an innovative and creative response to the need to build a bridge between the necessarily secret work of GCHQ and the more open world of assuring the security of business and public bodies. There is a widely recognised need to raise public awareness and provide high-level advice—and I salute the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in promoting that. As the Minister reminded us, the centre has not yet been open a year, but I think that, before long, there will be a case to take stock of its work and to learn lessons from how it is carrying out its vital role.

Finally, in the more traditional world of intelligence there is always an insatiable requirement for high-grade political and economic intelligence on the many trouble spots in the world. What are the Russians’ intentions in Ukraine or the Baltic? What do we know about the shifting political sands in the Middle East, the Gulf, Syria and Iran? What do we really know about intentions and capabilities in North Korea? The list is endless; the resources are finite; priorities need examining. Continuing scrutiny of the work of the intelligence services in these areas, as well as the effective use of their resources, is the proper function of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee appointed by the Government. I hope that this parliamentary body can be reconstituted soon, given recent events. In another place last month, the Home Secretary fully recognised the need for this. Does the Minister have further news on the re-establishment of the committee? The committee has a vital and crucial role both in explaining the intelligence community to the public and in holding it to account. That it does so effectively is in the interest of the public, of Parliament and of the intelligence community itself, as it can only be really effective if it continues to enjoy the widest possible public trust that effective scrutiny brings. I firmly believe that it deserves that trust, but we should never take it for granted.

18:51

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Vere for initiating this debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Many noble Lords have modestly stated how ill-equipped they are to contribute to this debate. I fear that I can win that competition hands down.

The objective of terrorism is to create fear, alarm, loathing and discord, often where little or none existed before. The terrorists that we are now concerned with hate our modern liberal democracy with its great set of shared values backed up by a very well-developed system of justice and the rule of law. They will succeed only if we discard what we have developed over many years and overreact, in doing so making matters worse rather than better. We should never forget the lessons from the recent troubles in Northern Ireland where some of our policies acted as a recruiting sergeant for terrorist organisations.

It seems that every time there is a terrorist incident the media suggest that there were intelligence failings or ask why, if the perpetrator was known to the authorities, he was not put under relentless surveillance. With regard to the latter, the simple reason is that we are not a police state. We will not fall into the trap of allocating disproportionate resources to security. The authorities should be using intrusive techniques only when appropriate and only against suspects who are assessed as being a genuine threat. Sometimes that assessment might be in error and the risk is underestimated. I am furious with the leaking of techniques—particularly SIGINT capabilities that are so useful for keeping us safe. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, has just touched on that point.

Similarly, the authorities will not always get the intelligence in the right form, at the right time or it may simply be overlooked. It is inevitable that some attacks will get through and when they do we should support our security people. I salute them all. We should be grateful that they foil many attacks while at the same time adhering to the principles of justice and the rule of law and avoiding us slipping into becoming a police state. I therefore support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and other noble Lords.

We have talked much about what we can do to reduce the risk of attack by Contest and Prevent, et cetera, and I am sure that these are sound approaches. However, I worry about whether we are striking the right balance between detecting and being able to successfully prosecute perpetrators on one hand, and, on the other, recovering back to normal life as quickly as possible—in other words minimising the strategic effect of an attack. I fully accept that the police recover a vast amount of evidence and that it is analysed using all sorts of interesting and clever techniques.

Most of us find it extraordinary that anyone would commit suicide or expose themselves to a lethal armed police response, but the fact is that they do and they are not deterred by very long prison sentences if they are caught. Of course, if they are detected and convicted, perpetrators need to be locked up for a very long time for reasons of public protection. But even a suicidal terrorist will want to be confident that he will have effect—by that I mean strategic effect. I am concerned that the length of time we have a crime scene cordoned off may increase the effect—perceived or real—of the attack. For days after the attack the media show footage of cordoned-off scenes that only amplify the effect of the attack. It might seem cold-hearted, but I hope that Ministers consider very carefully how to minimise the perceived effect of an attack to make further attacks less attractive.

Another concern is that the media keep repeating the name of a terrorist perpetrator so that he is burned into the public consciousness: in other words, we have inadvertently made the terrorist a very significant person when he was not before. Is this a good idea? Can we think about encouraging the media to refer to the perpetrator only once in the back of a newspaper or report, or to once a day actually say what the perpetrator’s name is?

With the recent attacks and the Grenfell Tower disaster we saw the media showing footage of relatives and friends of missing people hunting for their loved ones. I cannot believe that the police are handling the issue of missing persons as badly as is suggested in the media. Will the Minister write in detail to me and others taking part in the debate on how the issue of missing people is being handled by the police, because I do not believe that they are doing this as badly as is portrayed?

The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was very interesting and measured. He was absolutely right about his concerns about an MTFA. That is certainly what keeps me awake at night. However, I believe that the Government are doing all they can to reasonably choke off the supply of illegal firearms. A lone wolf terrorist attempting to acquire a suitable firearm runs a high risk of being either defrauded or reported to the authorities. On the other hand, a properly trained and experienced terrorist runs the risk of being detected as part of a group. Unfortunately, there are ways other than smuggling to acquire powerful weapons, but I do not think it would be helpful to talk about them publicly. We could massively increase the effort of firearms control, as suggested by the noble Lord, but then still be subject to an MTFA, so I think that Ministers have the balance right.

Finally, all noble Lords will have been extremely disappointed by Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of the dreadful Grenfell Tower disaster. We easily run out of superlatives to describe it. Despite the awfulness of the disaster, it should have been relatively easy for the local authority to look after the adversely affected residents and set up a missing persons’ register. After all, there are only 24 storeys, with four or five families in each storey. Surely a local authority such as Kensington and Chelsea would have many more competent officials in its planning department alone than families to be looked after. Frankly, as a Conservative, I was deeply ashamed. There were only about 500 people directly and adversely involved. What would happen if it was 5,000 or, God forbid, 50,000? In the light of the abject failure of one LA to manage a highly localised and finite disaster, how can we have any confidence that there are no other equally weak local authorities? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking active and urgent steps to ensure and verify that all local authorities are meeting their obligations in terms of emergency planning and capacity? I believe this is very important because it goes back to my point about minimising the impact and strategic effect of any attack.

19:00

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I will concentrate on the issue of terrorism. I guess that if we had not had the attacks in Westminster, Manchester, on London Bridge and in Finsbury Park, we would not be having this debate today. I also want to acknowledge the significant experience among noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, who is a police and crime commissioner, has perhaps the most up-to-date experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, is a former director-general of the security services, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is not just the former chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority but the author of a recent report on London’s preparedness for a terrorist attack. I noticed some non-verbal reactions to what the noble Lord was saying. However, the fact is that among his 127 recommendations were that the authorities should consider barriers to protect pedestrians from the sort of attacks we saw in Nice and Berlin—a recommendation that was made prior to the London Bridge and Westminster attacks.

However, on a positive note, the noble Lord will be pleased to see that at the Pride in London event on Saturday, significant changes had been made to ensure the safety and security of those who participated, including—I noticed in particular—police vehicles parked across all the side-roads leading to the event to prevent a vehicle attack. So, some of the lessons from that report have clearly been learned.

The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, with his experience in Northern Ireland, is of course a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee; the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is a former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, is another member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

With regard to my own experience, I was the police spokesman in press conferences following the 7 July bombings in 2005, and I was the Metropolitan Police’s community relations lead after the failed attacks on 21 July 2005. I visited the officers at different police stations around London who were involved in the body recovery of the victims of the 7/7 bombings, and, with other noble Lords who have spoken today, I was in the Palace of Westminster when Keith Palmer was murdered and others lost their lives. I have been talking to the officers around the estate every day since to ensure that the response from the authorities has been appropriate. I was at home, 10 minutes’ walk away from Borough Market, when the attack happened there. So I have professional experience of and personal involvement in these issues. However, I do not have any inside knowledge, nor have I had any briefings from the police or the security services on the most recent attacks.

This is a debate, and on some points I have to acknowledge that what I will say is no more than an educated guess, albeit one informed by experience, research and analysis. I would welcome a challenge from the Minister in her response should she not agree with anything I am about to say.

Many noble Lords have given their assessment of the security situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, most powerfully described the contrast between the situation now and the challenges she faced 10 years ago. Eighty plots have been disrupted in the last four years, and there are 3,000 subjects of interest and 500 active investigations. The key here is of course to try to differentiate between people who espouse extremism and those who are prepared to carry that through with a violent attack. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem talked about the attack on Lee Rigby and the fact that a Facebook entry was found subsequently in which the attacker said that he wanted to kill a soldier. The fact is that there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of similar threats in posts made by people who had no intention of carrying out, or the ability to carry out, such an attack, but how do you differentiate between the different apparent warning signs?

The most important message that I want to deliver today is that we need a mature and considered response to what we have experienced. Although the situations may be different, we may be able to take some comfort from what has happened in the past. I have already referred to 7 July 2005, when four suicide bombers set out to detonate their devices on four Underground trains. One appeared to lose his nerve and ended up on a bus rather than an Underground train, and then detonated his device. Fifty-two innocent people lost their lives.

Two weeks later, a copycat group of would-be bombers tried to repeat what happened on 7 July. Even though it was apparently not in the original plan to explode a bomb on a bus, they tried to detonate three devices on the Underground and one on a bus. Thankfully, all failed to explode. Those responsible were quickly tracked down, prosecuted and convicted, including one who was returned to the UK very swiftly as a result of the European arrest warrant. There were no further attacks of that nature. Even though at the time it looked as though there would be a series of such attacks, in reality they never materialised.

On 22 March this year, Khalid Masood drove a car along the pavement on Westminster Bridge, killing four pedestrians, and then abandoned the car and fatally stabbed PC Keith Palmer. My personal view is that, if the fixed-point armed officers who had been in place until recently had been in place immediately behind the unarmed officers at the entrance to the Palace, that attacker could have been stopped even sooner and potentially Keith Palmer’s life could have been saved. Unfortunately, that fixed post of two armed officers standing immediately behind the unarmed officers was replaced by a patrol. The patrol, understandably, went to see what had happened on the bridge because they heard screaming and the sound of the car crashing, leaving those unarmed officers exposed.

On 3 June, three attackers drove a van along the pavement of London Bridge and then abandoned the van and fatally stabbed people in Borough Market. Eight innocent people lost their lives. It appeared to me to be a copycat attack of the 22 March incident.

In April 1999, David Copeland, a right-wing extremist, waged a 13-day terror campaign against minorities in Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho. He exploded three sophisticated nail bombs, killing three and injuring 162. He made the bombs himself. He was diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia but was none the less convicted of murder.

On 22 May this year, Salman Ramadan Abedi exploded a bomb packed with nuts and bolts in Manchester, killing 22 innocent people and injuring hundreds more. He made the bomb himself. We do not know what his mental state was at the time but it appears to have been an attack similar to that carried out by Copeland.

The point I am trying to make is that we may not be living in unprecedented times as far as successful terrorist attacks are concerned, but the picture painted by open-source material of the activity of people suspected of terrorism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, set out, clearly shows that an unprecedented number of plots have been thwarted. Nor must we forget the attack on Jo Cox and on the Finsbury Park mosque—both, again, apparently from the right.

I am afraid that I cannot move on without taking issue with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater—it has become a bit of a tradition between the two of us. If I recorded correctly what he said, he described Daesh or ISIS as a “religious sect” and he talked about “Islamic extremism”. My belief is that Islamism, as opposed to Islam, is a violent political ideology that looks to overthrow democracy and liberal values using a corruption of Islam as an excuse. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said—I see he has returned to the Chamber right on cue—it is probably more to do with politics and history than religion. It is a political ideology, not a religion or a religious sect, and I believe that “Islamic terrorism” is a contradiction in terms. I said that in a press conference following the 7 July 2005 bombings, and I stand by what I said.

What should the Government’s response be? The noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, talked about reviewing the counterterrorism strategy and the length of sentences for terrorism offences. However, as the noble Lord, Lord King, pointed out, the nature of terrorism has changed, certainly since the time of Irish republican terrorism—we did not have suicide bombers in those days. One has to ask: how many suicide bombers would be deterred by longer prison sentences for terrorist offences?

I also take issue with what the noble Baroness said about bilateral agreements with European partners. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, will correct me, but counterterrorism intelligence exchange tends to be on a bilateral basis, whether it is with the “Five Eyes” countries or individual European countries. However, when it comes to law enforcement and prosecuting people for terrorism offences, the structures tend to be EU-wide: Eurojust, the European arrest warrant and the European Court of Justice all play a central role in bringing people to justice. Those are two separate issues. In exiting the EU we will have a real problem in the prosecution of people, even if we do not have as much of a problem on intelligence exchange, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out.

Of course people expect the Government to respond to such outrages, and it is important that the Government review their strategy and tactics and the emergency response to such events. However, this needs to be done carefully and in a considered way. We need to look at the nature of the threat. As I have just said, it is not like Irish republican terrorism, which used to be based on a formal, hierarchical organisation that could be infiltrated, planning logistically sophisticated attacks. Islamism is a violent political ideology that wants to overthrow democracy and liberal values, and is perhaps more akin to the Red Army Faction, conducting guerrilla tactics against society.

Rather than a conventional organisation, ISIS is more a political idea that inspires people. There are two types of extremists: the first, intellectuals who have a corrupt and distorted view of Islam, which drives them to recruit the second, the foot soldiers. These are usually vulnerable, impressionable young men with a criminal past, who are encouraged to continue their previous criminal and violent behaviour in the name of Islamism. I draw the probably imperfect parallel between sophisticated, organised drug dealers who import and distribute illegal drugs but never leave their fingerprints on the packages, and the street dealers—petty criminals who are seen as disposable and easy to replace if they get arrested, leaving the masterminds unaffected.

Many suicide attackers are people who can get together on one day and carry out an attack the next. Even more sophisticated attacks can involve only person, and so communications between people are not necessarily helpful. What was helpful in every one of these attacks were changes in behaviour of those involved, as noticed by friends, relatives and neighbours. We heard that in the London Bridge attack, where a neighbour who was interviewed said that they were suspicious of the way that one of the people involved was behaving on the day of the attack by asking about how to hire a van and so forth. That is why many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bach, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, all mentioned the importance of community policing. If we are to encourage people from communities to come forward with information about changes in behaviour in those to whom they are close, those communities must have trust and confidence in the authorities. They have concerns about passing information to the security services because they do not know what the security services will do with it. A familiar and trusted face in the community to act as a conduit and provide reassurance is what community policing provides. That is why in our manifesto we had £300 million extra a year that could have been used to recruit an additional 8,000 community officers.

I have mentioned to the Minister before the fact that since 2010 we have lost almost 20,000 police officers and 24,000 support staff. When I mentioned that in an Oral Question, the Minister said that she did not recognise the figures. I hope that she can now say whether mine are correct. If not, perhaps she could write to me with the real figures as far as the fall in policing resources is concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has said, some cuts were clearly necessary. All public services had to tighten their belts to try to balance the books. But these cuts have now gone too far. It is not just cuts to community policing, but resilience in the face of terrorist attacks and the increased security that is required. We now have officers outside here whose days off are being cancelled—they are only getting one day off a week instead of two. They are working 12-hour shifts and becoming exhausted because there is not the capacity and resilience to be able to respond in these sorts of emergency situations.

As far as the internet is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, talked about the German approach of fining social media companies if they fail to act in taking down terrorist material. We know from our exploration of the issues around imposing age verification on adult websites that fining overseas-based tech companies is impractical. The only way that it can be done is to ask UK-based internet service providers to block websites that fail to comply with age verification, but that would not be a proportionate response to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and similar internet giants. We need international co-operation, particularly with the United States. An initiative started by Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister to appoint the Prime Minister’s special envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, is an example of the sort of international co-operation required. The new Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill QC, said that the suggestion of punishing technology companies such as Facebook and Google for not acting on unacceptable content was not the best course of action because they needed to be “brought firmly onside”. Pushing material on to the dark web where counternarratives cannot be set alongside the violent political ideology of Islamism is not the way to go. We are very fortunate to have the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in the House. We should listen very carefully to what she says from her position of expert knowledge.

Weakening encryption makes us all, including the Government and business, open to exploitation by criminals and hostile foreign Governments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said. Even end-to-end encryption does not prevent the tracking of useful metadata: who is communicating with whom, even if the content is not readily accessible? Equipment interference, where individuals who are suspected of serious crime or terrorism are known, provides a solution to accessing the content of end-to-end encrypted messages.

What about the question of more legislation? In the light of the spate of recent attacks, it is understandable that we should review the current situation in terms of practices and legislation. We have set out our position in a policy paper entitled Safe and Free which was approved at the party conference last autumn. It states that we believe that there is no need to change our position in the light of the recent attacks. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 goes too far in terms of some blanket surveillance, and we are not alone in saying that. The pressure group Liberty has been given permission by the High Court to challenge the legality of some of the measures in the Act.

On the question of more legislation, Max Hill QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told the BBC less than a month ago:

“It’s perfectly natural that we should all feel that we must do more, we must do something to combat what we are facing. My view coming into the scrutiny which we are told the prime minister wants to conduct is that we do have the appropriate laws in place, and that essentially the police and security services, and those whose job it is to keep us safe, do have the powers at their disposal.”


We have no objection to the complete surveillance of suspects where there is reasonable cause to suspect that they are involved in terrorism. What we object to is the storing of vast amounts of data on every member of the UK population on databases vulnerable to being accessed by criminals and hostile foreign powers, just in case less than 1% of those records comes in handy in future prosecutions. The security services have consistently maintained, as they did when the former Labour Government tried to introduce 90 days’ detention of terrorist suspects without charge, that the internet connection records of every UK citizen are not necessary for them to keep us safe.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about the Prevent strategy and the definition of extremism. The definition as set out in the Government’s counterterrorism strategy is too broad. By their definition the DUP would be included, so clearly something somewhere is not right. There are serious concerns about the Government’s Prevent programme. Indeed, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation shares our views on it. He wrote in the Evening Standard that many in the Muslim community felt unjustifiably targeted by Prevent and asked, if there is evidence that their concerns are not justified, why the Government will not produce it; they refuse to publish the results of their own internal review and refuse to allow an independent review of Prevent. He goes on:

“Prevent is controversial, to the point where reputable community organisations refuse to engage with it … Significant reform is required”.


We agree.

We need a mature and proportionate response to the threat we face. We have the best police and security services in the world, which are doing everything they possibly can to keep us safe. The recent spate of terrorist outrages are not a sign of failure; the many more plots that have been thwarted in recent years are a sign of success. The police and the security services deserve our respect, our admiration and our wholehearted support, but they can succeed only with the help and support of all communities in the UK. To do that, our laws and the way we use them must win their trust and confidence.

19:23

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thoughtful debate and I thank the Government for providing the opportunity to raise some areas of potential, if not necessarily always actual, concern. It was the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I think, who urged the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, to answer the questions raised in this debate by giving us her personal views. If the noble Baroness does that and her personal views differ from those of the Government, this may be one of her last appearances at the Dispatch Box even at a time when Cabinet Ministers do not always seem to be expressing a common policy line.

Inevitably, in a debate on this issue the Government will be limited to a greater or lesser degree in the amount of detail they feel able to give in response to issues raised. From the Opposition’s point of view, the inevitable lack of such detail makes it difficult to challenge and hold any Government to account, but I hope there are Ministers, however few, who know exactly what our security and intelligence services are doing and in what way, and that there are checks and balances so that Ministers are not simply dependent on what they are told.

That is not a criticism of anybody; it is simply what ought to be the case in a democracy where there is accountability through elected leaders. There is, of course, the joint Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Government can hardly be expected to answer for it. In any case, it cannot be answerable to the people of this country for the effectiveness of the role it undertakes in the way that a Government and Ministers can for their actions and decisions. However, it would be helpful if the Government could provide an assurance that even if the number of Ministers in the know is small, they are satisfied that they have sufficient control over and knowledge of what our security and intelligence services are doing to be able to say that there can be no significant or potentially controversial activity that our security and intelligence services had undertaken of which they were not aware.

There has been much discussion recently about public sector pay. I assume our security and intelligence service personnel have also had their pay capped for the last seven years in the same way as other public employees, including the police. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that or otherwise. If that is the case, what impact has that had first on morale, secondly on recruitment and retention rates, and thirdly on the number of posts vacant? Has this vacancy figure increased or decreased over the last few years?

The Government have said that more resources have been put into intelligence and security services. Will they confirm what that increase has been in each of the last three years? Will the Minister also say who determines where existing and additional resources will be directed? Is it ultimately a ministerial decision in the sense that it at least requires ministerial agreement, or is the issue of priorities and where resources are directed one that is left entirely for the intelligence and security services to decide?

Governments often talk about the need to get value for money. I assume the same applies to our security and intelligence services. If that assumption is correct, what are the criteria against which a judgment is made on whether our security and intelligence services maximise value for money in respect of their resources? Equally, and perhaps more importantly, how do we know the extent to which a lack of resources may be impeding the effectiveness of our security and intelligence services with potentially serious consequences?

In the current climate, our security and intelligence services have never maintained that they can or will be able to stop every attempted act of terrorism from succeeding. They have always said in the current situation that it is a case of when rather than if, but have also quite rightly drawn attention to the number of occasions on which they have been successful in nipping a significant number of likely such acts in the bud. The significant number of successful prosecutions for terrorist or terrorist-related offences is of course a matter of hard fact. From that we should take considerable comfort and for that we should all be extremely grateful for the work they do.

In recent months, we have had four high-profile terrorist incidents in which varying numbers of lives have tragically been lost. In some of these instances it has been reported that the perpetrators have been known to the security and intelligence services. There can of course be different interpretations of the relevance of that situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said. As I understand it, the Government have asked the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, to look into issues surrounding these recent attacks. What doubt or concern led the Government to ask David Anderson to undertake this exercise? What exactly are his terms of reference? When will the report, and to what extent will his findings, be made public?

The Government intend to establish a counterterrorism commission. What existing government concerns or issues is the commission meant to address which are not being addressed at present or not being addressed adequately? In addition, what activities currently undertaken by other bodies or individuals will in future be undertaken by the counterterrorism commission, and to what extent will its work be new and not undertaken at present? What kind of budget will the commission have?

The Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has said—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to it—that existing statutory powers are sufficient to address current threats from a legal powers point of view, although he has indicated that sentencing levels should be reviewed. On both these issues, is the Government’s view the same as that of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, if not, what is the hard evidence that further legislation would make our security and intelligence services more effective in combating terrorism and related acts? Were any of the four recent incidents in London and Manchester not prevented because of insufficient legal powers as opposed, for example, to insufficient resources to cope fully with current workloads or just plain bad luck? Is this one of the questions on which David Anderson has been asked to report?

One area where there has been a reduction in resources is in our police, whose numbers have been cut over the past seven years. The Government’s argument has been that, since crime rates have fallen, this has not caused a problem. Crimes of violence, however, are on the rise; the level of hate crime has increased; cybercrime, which affects individuals and large corporations alike, has gone through the roof, and there is now heightened concern over acts of terrorism both here and in mainland Europe.

Our security, police and intelligence services play a key role in combating acts of terrorism; so, too, do the public, as other noble Lords have already said, not least my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. One way in which the role of the public is vital is through drawing the attention of the police to those whose actions and words suggest they might be open to being persuaded or encouraged to contemplate such acts. Yet cuts have been made in community neighbourhood policing—the very police personnel who have built up the closest contact and relationship with the communities they serve and who are most likely to have the confidence of those communities. That confidence is so vital to picking up and being given information and can not only reduce the level of long-term crime but help in combating acts of terrorism and hate crime and in preventing people going down that road. My noble friend Lord Bach spoke powerfully on the impact of cuts on neighbourhood policing and on policing in general. The effectiveness of the Prevent strategy can only have been weakened by the cuts to community neighbourhood policing.

Concerns have been expressed about the approach to the Prevent strategy as opposed to its concept or purpose. Terrorism is not confined to those who claim to act in the murderous and thuggish way they do in the name of a particular faith or religion. As has already been said, Jo Cox MP was murdered by a right-wing extremist, and the perpetrator of the attack at the Finsbury Park mosque certainly was not claiming to be doing it in the name of Islam, any more than do those behind the recent increased levels of hate crime against Muslims and against women Members of Parliament. Yet for many Muslims the Prevent strategy seems to be aimed primarily at them, and with it the inference that Muslims as a whole are both the source of terrorism and supporters of terrorism. That does nothing to enhance trust and confidence, and nothing to encourage the flow of information which is so vital in preventing and combating acts of terrorism, acts which do not distinguish between faiths when it comes to those who are killed or maimed as a result. Indeed, the hard facts show that those who commit acts of terrorism or hate crime are more than likely to already have criminal records. That suggests either that they are easily led by those with extreme political views, or that they simply choose to adopt a violent approach to those groups they decide they do not like: that is the key factor behind the acts they commit, rather than any credible adherence to any faith or religion. They do not deserve the cover for their actions which they claim a faith or religion provides, and no faith or religion deserves them.

Cybercrime has become an issue of real concern, both when individuals, often vulnerable individuals, are the victims, and also when major companies and organisations, including Governments, are the targets. The acts appear to be committed by individuals who see it as a game, by individuals and organisations which are in it for illicit financial gain or competitive advantage, or by those who act for or with the full knowledge of nation states against other nation states. We appear to be in a situation where our major public utilities, our banking and financial services system and our health service, for example, are potentially at risk of being brought nearly to their knees by such attacks. Presumably, the threat is also there in respect of neutralising or reducing the capability and effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

I appreciate, of course, that there will be real limits to what the Government will want to disclose, but how are decisions made on the resources that need to be made available to protect us from cyberattacks in a situation where the speed of technological advance is rapid, and where keeping ahead of the game is vital? Is the provision of resources to combat the threat of cyberattacks, particularly by or with the blessing of other nation states, affected by financial constraints, or do we provide whatever resources are needed to combat those threats? Lower down the line, have our police forces been given the resources, skills and capabilities needed to combat the rapid increase in the types of cybercrime with which they increasingly have to deal? Are decisions on how such resources are allocated determined by individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners when they draw up budgets, or are such matters determined on a national basis, and, if so, by whom? The effectiveness of the National Crime Agency in combating cybercrime, which recognises no individual police force boundaries, can be hampered only if individual police forces do not regard putting more resources into combating this particular type of crime as a priority when forced to make such choices through being stretched, which is how more than one commissioner or chief constable has recently described their current situation.

There is also the role of service providers, as well as government, in preventing the internet and cyberspace being used to spread extremism and hatred, or as a vehicle for planning acts of terrorism. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke about this and, in particular, about what can and cannot realistically be achieved. The decision to withdraw from the European Union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, referred, could affect co-operation with other European nations through European agencies—the European arrest warrant, for example—which are key parts of the armoury in the constant battle to combat serious crime, including terrorism. What undertakings are the Government prepared to give today at the Dispatch Box that, whatever else emerges at the end of the negotiations on our withdrawal from the European Union, our existing membership of the European agencies and procedures involved in combating crime, including terrorism, will continue to no lesser extent than they do today?

In 2015, the Government announced proposals to introduce a new extremism Bill, but no such Bill ever materialised. In 2016, a counterextremism and safeguarding Bill was announced, but no detailed proposals ever emerged. That may well have been no bad thing. There has been a cross-government review of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy, known as Contest. There have been reviews of the Prevent strategy. We now have a review by Mr David Anderson. There is now going to be a commission for countering extremism. With this Government, there is quite a lot of talk about what they intend to do to counter the threats of extremism and terrorism, whether through Bills or reviews, but all too often not enough action to address the problems our police, security and intelligence services actually face. Indeed, some government actions have made the situation worse, not least through the reductions in community neighbourhood policing. There is also the reality that additional resources found for counterterrorism activities, particularly on the police side, can be at the expense of resources able to be directed at other significant areas of crime.

During the election, following a terror attack in London, the Prime Minister said that, “Enough is enough”. That is true: we have had enough talk. We now have to provide the resources needed to address the major increase in the number of investigations our hard-pressed security, intelligence and police forces have to handle, and end a situation where chief constables, commissioners and PCCs are uncertain whether they are still going to be asked to accept further cuts in real terms—further “efficiency savings”, as they are often called—when they are already using the euphemism that their forces and budgets are being “stretched”.

19:41

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been a very good debate, with some wide-ranging comments from different parts of the House and on different aspects of security. I am particularly grateful to see such representation on the Cross Benches from the intelligence services in one way or another. I will start with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who said that this is very complex and the solution will not be a quick fix. She is absolutely correct, which is why we have been debating this for so long, and rightly so.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made a very profound speech, I thought, and talked about how rapid the response of our emergency services was but that, for the people who were caught up in the attack, it probably seemed like it took for ever for them to get there. That said, some emergency services were there within seconds, all of them within minutes. He also talked about the police presence in London versus our freedoms. I do not know about other noble Lords, but when I first came back to London after the attacks, it felt like a very different London from that which I had left several weeks earlier.

The noble Lord and I have talked a lot about securing the border. We adopt a rigorous approach to border security. As he knows, this includes effective working between agencies to manage the threat posed by terrorism, serious organised crime and immigration. It includes specific briefings to those who work at the border on how to identify those potentially returning to the UK from conflict zones. It includes carrying out 100% immigration and security checks at the primary control point, advanced checks where available, and intelligence-led targeting at ports. We have contingency plans in place for a full range of situations and are able to flex our resources appropriately. For example, between 2010 and September 2016, more than 1,500 people were arrested for terrorism-related offences. We refused entry to nearly 9,000 EEA nationals; nearly 6,000 of these were stopped at our juxtaposed borders. In total, more than 116,000 people were refused entry to the UK, with nearly 30,000 of those stopped at the juxtaposed borders, to help keep us all safe.

The noble Lord has also talked to me on several occasions, and we have had several Questions in the House, about firearms and the effectiveness of the border. As he will know, the Home Office continually reviews the approach to border security. Border Force invested £68 million in technology and infrastructure in 2016-17, a 70% uplift on the previous year, to make our already secure borders even stronger. Building on the learning from successful multiagency work on firearms in 2016, a multiagency firearms unit was recently established. This is being led by the National Crime Agency and counterterrorism policy, and it is co-ordinating law enforcement activity to disrupt the supply of illegal firearms and to improve our understanding of the terrorist and organised crime threat in the UK and internationally.

The noble Lord asked about protective security and barriers. Protective barriers are only one part of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy. The national barrier asset for the temporary mitigation of vehicle threats is available for all police forces. We continue to expand it as a resource and ensure that its deployment is considered where required for events.

The noble Lord also asked me about protecting events, the licensing of major events and staff training. Specifically on protective security for events, the protection and preparedness of events are dealt with through operational policing efforts overseen by a common team with the counterterrorism element dealt with by a security co-ordinator. Mandating requirements on event owners through licensing would need to be very carefully considered and would have to be appropriate and proportionate for all event organisers, as the noble Lord will appreciate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, made some very good points about the types of attacks that we are experiencing now, the knowledge of those attacks, the tempo of attacks—nobody can disagree that the tempo of attacks has significantly increased over recent months—and the high level of plots, and said that the level of “severe” is justified and the level of “critical” for that week was totally justified. She talked about the difference in recent years with the number of people on lists as being of interest has gone up massively since as few as 10 years ago and she wondered whether the pattern of low-tech or low-sophistication is going to continue. It looks like a pattern. If she would like, I will write to her further on what we expect patterns to be, but I suspect it is a national security question and I will not be able to answer, but she of all people will understand that. The noble Baroness also rightly talked about the 18 plots that have been foiled in recent months. That is a huge number, but that is not to detract from the number we have seen. She mentioned that the solution will not be a quick fix.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford talked about the unifying values the Government have envisaged. Some of the programmes we have had in recent months and years have homed in on those unifying values. He mentioned the Near Neighbours projects which have been so good in promoting the unifying values of cohesive communities in our society.

My noble friend Lord King talked very interestingly about Northern Ireland never having had suicide bombers—that is so true—and said that they were at least sensitive to public opinion. I do not know how sensitive they were to public opinion, but certainly after the events of Enniskillen there was a big backlash and they thought long and hard. We are in different times. I was also very impressed that my noble friend knows all about Snapchat—it was my children who told me about it. We have this climate now of rapid communications, for good or for bad, as he pointed out. He also talked about the problems coming upstream created by population explosion and failed states, of which there are several, and mentioned the interesting fact about water shortages in Iran that might necessitate further population movements in the future.

In the interlude while the Statement was on, we talked outside about the production of videos by ISIL, or Daesh. These videos are very appealing to a certain minority of people, as are the other messages that are produced and appear on social media. He is absolutely right that Germany is getting CSPs to take internet content down, but the Home Secretary has also been very successful in this area. She was in Ottawa last month and we secured support from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US for our campaign to take terrorist material offline. Together we announced that companies such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter will form a new global industry forum to tackle terrorist use of the internet. This is a huge step forward. We have been absolutely clear that hateful content used to recruit and radicalise should not be allowed on their platforms and that it must be removed more quickly and more proactively. As one noble Lord said, we have done it without legislation, by agreement, and that is the right way to work together internationally, as my noble friend said.

My noble friend also asked about legislating to fine companies for not removing content. We are, as I have said, trying to work with them and will also explore the possibility of creating a legal liability for communications service providers if they fail to take the necessary action to remove content. But the relationship with them so far has been very productive and positive.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, talked about CT and community policing and the value of the latter in identifying where there might be extremism or moves towards terrorism. We know that crime is changing and are sensitive to current pressures on policing. We are absolutely mindful of the pressure that the police have been under in the several terrorist attacks that we have faced, and indeed in the Grenfell Tower incident, which left many of them absolutely exhausted. We have protected police spending since 2015, but we are in talks with them to ensure that, on the back of what we have seen, they have enough resources to be able to carry out the jobs that they need to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, talked about co-operation with CSPs. As I have just said, we have made significant progress in that area. She also talked very positively about the positive things about the internet. We are tonight talking about some of the bad things that can happen on the internet, but of course it is a very positive force for good in so many ways. Are we as policymakers keeping up? I have just confessed to the House that I had not heard of Snapchat until my daughter talked about it. It is absolutely vital that we know what we are talking about when we are making laws on this. I hope that we take plenty of advice from people such as the noble Baroness. She talked about the domination of online by the big five. It is true: they do. She also talked about the crackdown on the jihadis notion by CSPs. They have taken a huge amount of content down: 270,000 pieces of inappropriate internet material since 2010.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, questioned the value of Prevent and called for it to be reviewed. We think that it has made a significant impact on preventing people from being drawn into terrorism. It delivered 142 community-based projects in 2015-16, reaching more than 42,000 participants. We have trained more than 850,000 front-line staff in Prevent, including NHS staff and teachers. Significantly, we disrupted 150 journeys to the Syria-Iraq conflict in 2015.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the definition of extremism and asked whether it is too broad. We still stand by it. The 2015 strategy sets out the definition. It is,

“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

Extremists seek to undermine these values and divide communities, but I agree that there is much more that we can do. The noble Baroness asked whether the commission for countering extremism will be statutory. Ministers are considering the delivery options for the commission and will bring forward legislation if necessary. The Government will make an announcement in due course.

The noble Baroness also asked why the Government have not published the Islamist extremism funding review in the light of the recent attacks in London and Manchester. The review has improved the Government’s understanding of the nature, scale and source of funding for Islamist extremism in the UK. Ministers are considering advice about what in the report can be published and will update Parliament in due course.

The noble Baroness also asked about Saudi aiding and funding of radicalisation and whether the Government are prioritising economic benefit over security by keeping the funding part of the report back. The UK has vital national security and prosperity interests in maintaining and developing our relationship with the Gulf region, including how we work together to tackle the threat of extremism and terrorism. The Government are determined to cut off funding which fuels the evils of extremism in the UK, including from overseas, and will continue to work closely with our international partners to tackle the shared threat.

The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether leaving the EU puts our national security at risk. It is in all our interests that we continue our deep co-operation with the EU and its member states to tackle threats together. We will seek a strong and close future relationship with the EU, with a focus on operational and practical cross-border co-operation. Security and law enforcement co-operation with our EU and global allies remains of the utmost importance and we will have close and effective operational relationships with international partners.

The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, also asked about the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU saying that we will withdraw from Prüm. No decisions have been taken regarding how the UK will continue to co-operate with the EU on tackling cross-border crime and security threats, as this will be a matter for negotiation. He also asked about our membership of Europol once we leave. Law enforcement co-operation with the EU will continue after the UK leaves the EU, and we will do what is necessary to keep our country safe.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about my letter to him. It was with him today, or at least, it was deposited today, and I hope that he will enjoy reading it. If there are any matters arising from it, he can get back to me. He also asked why the UK cannot arrest everyone who tries to return to the UK from Syria. Everyone who returns from taking part in the conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be reviewed by the police to determine if they have committed any crimes, and to ensure that they do not pose a threat to our national security. Those who have committed a criminal offence should expect to be prosecuted for their crimes under the full range of existing counterterrorism legislation. However, any decision on whether to prosecute will be taken on a case-by-case basis. There have already been several successful prosecutions for those who have returned from Syria, and this includes a 12-year custodial sentence for a British national who took part in terrorist training camps in Syria, and helped to create recruiting videos for Daesh.

My noble friend also asked about our taking Syrian returners’ passports away. Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the deprivation of British citizenship where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is conducive to the public good and would not make an individual stateless. He also asked about the Muslim Brotherhood. We continue to monitor a number of organisations, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. We are always ready to examine any new evidence that is shared with us, which would be measured against the UK’s own legal framework.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, talked about the history of the last 100 years, and my noble friend Lord King helpfully intervened. My conclusion on the contributions from both noble Lords was that it is definitely complicated, without giving my own opinion on the last 100 years.

On the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I think I have gone through the issue of police funding. I have not mentioned CT police funding. We have a constructive and ongoing dialogue with police colleagues, including the Metropolitan Police, about ensuring that the right powers, capabilities and resources are in place. We remain committed to increasing cross-government spending on CT by 30%, from £11.7 billion to £15.1 billion. The overall CT police spend has been protected in real terms against the 2015 baseline over the spending review period. We have allocated £633 million of resource funding and £42 million of capital funding to support counterterrorism policing in 2017-18. In addition, a further £32 million will be provided for armed policing from the police transformation fund in 2017-18.

The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, talked about the internal review by MI5 and the police and asked when it would be complete. It will be thorough and will take time, but we expect David Anderson to conclude his work by the end of October, and he will then report his conclusions to the Home Secretary, copied to the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

I realise that I have gone over time, but if noble Lords will bear with me for a couple more minutes, I shall hopefully be able to get through the majority of responses.

The noble Lord asked when the review would be published. We will be as transparent as possible in making public David Anderson’s findings, and a summary of his conclusions will be made available publicly. However, to be thorough, the review will need to look in detail at sensitive material, as the noble Lord will appreciate, and we will not be able to publish some of the findings in full where it would compromise our ability to disrupt terrorists and prevent further attacks.

My noble friend Lord Attlee referred to local authorities and local planning. We keep preparedness under constant review. In addition to armed policing, on which I have already spoken, a multiagency capability is deployable from key locations in England, Scotland and Wales to an incident occurring anywhere in the UK. The national counterterrorism exercise programme works to ensure that the Government, police and other blue-light responders, the military and other agencies, are prepared to respond to terrorist attacks in the UK.

I have left out a load of questions from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser. Would they be okay for me to write to them, because I really am going over time now, at 24 minutes?

Recent events have reminded us all that the threats we face are real and persistent, but they have shown us that we have much to be thankful for, not least our strong and resilient communities and our world-leading emergency services, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for how they have responded in the past few weeks—and also our security and intelligence services. Those are the assets on which we will draw as we ensure the security of the United Kingdom.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 8.07 pm.