House of Commons
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, by the end of 2018, almost all passengers will have the choice of a smart ticket, making buying a ticket easier and giving passengers much greater choice.
Graham P. Jones
What plans does the Minister have to ensure that split ticketing does not erode trust in the rail fare system? How can he ensure that ticket machines on the East Lancs line provide the cheapest option to passengers when there are not necessarily offices to buy tickets from?
Joseph Johnson
Simplification of ticketing and ease of understanding for passengers is extremely important, as is ensuring that passengers have access to the fares that are right for them. It is important that train operating companies look carefully at their ticketing arrangements to ensure that that is the case.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is simpler necessarily cheaper? Because if there is a choice…
Joseph Johnson
Simpler may be cheaper, and there may also be circumstances in which it leads to cost increases. It is important that we achieve a system that is comprehensible, in which passengers do not have to struggle for hours to work out which ticket is the right one for them. Following the 2016 fares and ticketing action plan, we introduced advance tickets for sale on the day of travel that benefit hundreds of thousands of passengers.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s letter of this week, saying that his Department is taking on extra resource to simplify the fare structure on the Brighton main line. Will he reassure passengers in the area that that simplification will involve the rounding down of fares, not just rounding up? Will he also tell passengers when they can expect the review to complete?
Joseph Johnson
I can indeed confirm that the Department has taken on additional resource specifically to address the anomalies within the Govia Thameslink Railway fare structure. As the hon. Gentleman said, there will be a review in order to simplify the structure, with particular reference to complications on that route. We are working with GTR to achieve this as rapidly as we can.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
As my hon. Friend knows, once High Speed 2 comes into operation it will move the express trains off the existing west coast main line and on to the new route. That will provide a great opportunity to improve services to intermediate stops such as Lichfield that do not have a good enough service at the moment.
Michael Fabricant
I am slightly reassured by that answer. The Secretary of State talks about moving express trains off the west coast main line, but of course we currently have a very good Pendolino service and the slower West Midlands trains. Several hundred of my constituents commute to London every single day. What assurance can the Secretary of State give them that the Pendolino service—a fast, express service—will continue, and indeed that the Pendolinos will be replaced with equally fast trains when they come to the end of their life cycle?
Chris Grayling
The Pendolinos have many years to go, and I have no doubt that they will be replaced by a high-quality fast train in the future. My hon. Friend will have stood on the platform at Lichfield station and seen trains to Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland zooming past at high speed. The new plans will provide an opportunity for more trains to stop at Lichfield.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State knows well that I believe that HS2 is a vanity project that will never come to fruition. He knows that my constituents in the booming town of Huddersfield, which he visited recently, have access to the west coast line and the east coast line, but most of all they want a good trans-Pennine connection everywhere.
Chris Grayling
Absolutely, which is why I have already announced that the £2.9 billion upgrade of the trans-Pennine line will begin this time next year, as the start of a transformation that is vital to the north. In the coming months we will also see the arrival of the first of a complete new set of trains across the north of England that will transform passengers’ experience.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Previously I have raised concerns that, under the Department’s current proposals, high-speed classic-compatible trains will run slower north of Crewe than existing trains on the west coast main line just now. The Secretary of State said that we need to address that as we go through the 2020s. That is clearly not good enough. We need certainty now. If he will not commit to upgrading the west coast main line north of Crewe, will he look into procuring trains that can tilt and travel on the high-speed network?
Chris Grayling
The new classic-compatible trains and the arrival of HS2 up to the north-west of England will of course mean more speedy journey times to Scotland. I know the hon. Gentleman’s party’s view. We want to see further improvements through the 2020s to the west coast main line north of Crewe to ensure that we improve journey times. We want the best possible journey times across the whole network, and will continue to work for that.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
HS2 Ltd will bring forward a draft environmental statement for phase 2b later this year, which will provide greater detail on the land requirements for the construction, maintenance and operation of phase 2b of HS2 and proposed mitigation. This will then be consulted on, and HS2 Ltd will continue to seek the input of landowners, local communities and stakeholders as the design of the railway is developed.
Toby Perkins
HS2 is an incredibly important regeneration project, but so is Chesterfield canal, which has had five years of blight, being unable to make applications because of the uncertainty around HS2. Near the maintenance depot that is proposed for Staveley, there is a piece of land currently owned by Network Rail that needs to pass over to HS2. May I encourage the Minister to ask HS2 to get on with taking over ownership of that land so that Chesterfield canal can finally put forward plans to apply for new funding and reduce that blight?
Ms Ghani
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that HS2 Ltd is working with Chesterfield Canal Trust and is committed to finding a solution. HS2 Ltd will be more than happy to meet him to discuss the Staveley design proposals and the interface with Chesterfield canal. I also assure him, however, that Chesterfield Canal Trust has recently publicly said that it is pleased with the recent commitment from HS2 Ltd and is now more confident that a solution will be found.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Two HS2 lines go through Derbyshire—the one that goes through Newton and the other that is now apparently going to create difficulties on Chesterfield canal. We have heard reference to the question of the real cost of HS2, as it changes quite often. What is the latest cost, taking into account those two railway tracks through Derbyshire?
Ms Ghani
As I said, Chesterfield Canal Trust is working with HS2 Ltd and is happy with the relationship they have and the potential outcome regarding the canal area. The hon. Gentleman has reservations about, and has consistently raised, the cost of HS2, but it is on budget and on time. We must not forget that once HS2 is up and running, it will be the backbone of this country, bringing along with it 100,000 jobs.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is supporting the sale of Network Rail’s property assets. The Federation of Small Businesses says that this will put small companies out of business because the new private owner will rapidly rack up rents, which will restrict key developments in places such as Chesterfield. Does he not see that the sell-off will lose the railway valuable and vitally important income?
Andy McDonald
The Secretary of State is supporting the sale of Network Rail’s property assets. The Federation of Small Businesses says that this will put small companies out of business because the new private owner will rapidly rack up rents, which will restrict key developments in places such as Chesterfield. Does he not see that the sell-off will lose the railway valuable and vitally important income?
Andy McDonald
In 2015, the DFT accepted Sir Peter Hendy’s plan to sell £1.8 billion of Network Rail property. These assets are now worth only £1 billion but generate £90 million of revenue each year. How can the Secretary of State still argue that this sell-off of the family silver makes sense? Is it not clear that his plan will cost Network Rail and British taxpayers dearly?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
Transport investment decisions are made based on a rigorous and fair appraisal process that ensures that spending goes where it is needed and delivers greatest value for money. Recent analysis by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority suggests that, in contrast to the five years leading up to 2010, planned central Government transport capital spending per head between 2017-18 and 2020-21 is expected to be higher in the north than in the south. That includes, as the hon. Lady will be pleased to learn, £337 million for new Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock in her constituency.
Chi Onwurah
Since 2010, transport spending in London has been more than twice that in the whole of the north, and the Government’s own northern powerhouse says that underinvestment stops us exploiting strengths in manufacturing, energy, health and digital, which could transform the lives of my constituents. The Minister’s own Transport for the North says that it will cost £27 billion to transform the north’s economy by taking advantage of those strengths: will he commit to funding it?
Joseph Johnson
We are undertaking unprecedented investment in the north of England—£13 billion, which is the largest in Government history. Of course, we want to do more to ensure that we are building proper transport links and growing the northern powerhouse, which is why we have created Transport for the North and put it on a statutory footing. Over the recess, I was delighted to attend its very first board meeting as a statutory body.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Instead of applying Barnett, why does the Minister not support his Department’s recommendation of £4.2 billion of funding for Scotland?
Joseph Johnson
Scotland will receive significantly greater resources in the next control period between 2019 and 2024 than it has in any period in this country’s history.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
Top o’ the morning to you, Mr Speaker. The Government have allocated significant resources to west Yorkshire for local transport schemes, including £781 million over 30 years from local growth funding and other sources, but Bradford Council has not yet brought forward that scheme for funding. Our consultation on the major roads network, which could provide another funding route for such schemes, has recently closed. We will respond to the consultation in due course.
Philip Davies
May I place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for the interest he has shown in developing a Shipley eastern bypass, especially when he visited the area last year? That was in sharp contrast to Bradford Council, which has shown zero interest in developing such a bypass, despite it being much needed by local residents. The council has not even come up with the costs of development that the Secretary of State asked for more than four months ago. Will the Minister not only develop a bypass for Shipley, but bypass Bradford Council so that we can crack on with a scheme that is much needed by the local economy and residents?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend says, this scheme potentially offers relief from congestion, better local access and better connectivity to Leeds-Bradford airport, and we are very interested to see it proceed.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Government set noise controls at Heathrow airport, including total noise limits and aircraft movement limits for night flights. These controls, in conjunction with stricter aircraft noise standards negotiated by the UK at the international level, have resulted in a long-term reduction in the number of people affected by aircraft noise near the airport.
Ruth Cadbury
A freedom of information request revealed Government analysis that expects nearly a million households to face increased daytime noise if Heathrow is allowed to build a third runway. Will the Secretary of State visit my constituents, tens of thousands of whom will face significantly worse noise if the third runway goes ahead, and for whom no amount of noise insulation will be acceptable?
Chris Grayling
I have been in the hon. Lady’s constituency on many occasions and heard the noise there, and I am very pleased that, over the last 20 years, we have seen a steady reduction in aircraft noise. That is expected to continue as a new generation of aircraft appear in greater numbers. The projections show that, as we enter the 2030s with that change in aircraft fleet, we do not expect an overall noise impact on people around the airport. Nor do we expect an increase in the number of people within the 54 dB bracket, precisely because a new generation of lower-noise aircraft—they will also be lower-emission and lower-fuel consuming aircraft—will mean a quieter airport generally.
Adam Afriyie
The aviation national policy statement states that about 93,000 more people will be significantly affected by noise if the third runway goes ahead, yet Civil Aviation Authority figures indicate that more than 2 million people will be affected. Will the Government acknowledge that vast disparity in numbers, and will they update the aviation national policy statement?
Chris Grayling
Before the aviation national policy statement is brought to the House, it will be updated off the back of work done by the Transport Committee and the public consultations that have taken place—it will be a refreshed document when it comes before the House. The impact of noise on residents around Heathrow depends on an assessment of the rate of arrival of that new generation of aircraft. As we get into the 2030s, we expect no overall increase in the number of people in the 54 dB noise barrier because of the arrival of those new aircraft. There may be a short period in the mid-2020s when there is a small increase, depending on the airport’s rate of growth and the development of the aircraft fleet, but any such increase will be a short-term one.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
When will we get a new train service between Reading and Heathrow? That will help to reduce noise and get Welsh travellers to the airport.
Chris Grayling
Western rail access to Heathrow is part of our plans for control period 6, and I expect construction to start between 2019 and 2024. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I recently invited the private sector to bring forward proposals for southern access as well, as part of a land and surface access package that will bring substantial increases to the capacity of rail links to Heathrow airport.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
These problems are not unique to Heathrow; they also affect areas around Gatwick, which has a lower level of ambient noise. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that any further lessons learned about how we reduce noise at Heathrow can be applied more generally?
Chris Grayling
They can be, and the point I did not make in my response to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is that we are in the process of modernising the use of airspace in this country. I hope and believe that that will allow us to manage much more carefully respite for airports, and flight paths into and out of airports, and to do the best we can to minimise the impact of aviation on communities. There can be no situation where there is no impact, but I want us to do our best to ensure that that impact is as carefully managed and minimised as possible.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The UK is building one of the best global ChargePoint networks. Our new £400 million ChargePoint infrastructure investment fund will see thousands more charge points installed nationwide. We already provide grants to install charging stations in workplaces, homes and residential streets, and for buses and taxis. Through the Go Ultra Low city scheme, Bath—the hon. Lady’s constituency—and other cities are installing publicly accessible charging hubs. Also, the new Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill will encourage large fuel retailers to install charge points on their premises.
Wera Hobhouse
In Bath, the council is considering introducing a clean air zone, focusing particularly on older, more polluting vehicles, but that will disproportionately disadvantage the less well-off, who are more likely to own older vehicles. Will the Government consider a scrappage scheme for old vehicles to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles without disadvantaging the less well-off in our city?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady will be aware, substantial scrappage schemes already exist in the market through the private sector, and those look to continue.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Expanding the charging infrastructure is a key part of encouraging people to switch to ultra-low emission vehicles, but does the Minister agree that the Government’s decision to cut the plug-in car grant and the home charging grant sends out contradictory signals? Will he commit to maintaining the current value of both grants in real terms, at least at their existing levels?
Jesse Norman
I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis of the situation. As I saw when I visited Nissan recently, electric cars are being taken up at higher rates than ever before, and the plug-in car grant has been an important part of that. As the industry becomes more mature—we are seeing greater signs of that; the new Nissan Leaf has started to have stable resale values, which is an important sign of maturity—we would naturally expect levels of Government subsidy to fall.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is very welcome that the Government are looking at alternative fuels. Will the Minister agree to place in the House of Commons Library a summary of the grants, incentive payments and similar subsidies being paid out by his Department in respect of each of the different alternatives being explored?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady will know, we have recently made a new £11 million investment in hydrogen charging, so she is absolutely right that we take a technology-neutral view and that we seek to encourage different forms of technology wherever available. I will certainly talk to officials about what information we can place in the Library, but I think much of it is already in the public domain.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I meet my right hon. Friends and Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis to discuss the UK’s exit from the EU. Ministers and officials across Departments are working closely to consider carefully the implications for the aviation sector after we leave the EU.
Carol Monaghan
Last month we heard that the first formal talks on a post-Brexit open skies deal with the US were cut short after US negotiators offered an inferior deal to the one we currently enjoy, so when does the Secretary of State plan to return to the negotiating table, and will he do so with a sense of reality about the impact that hard Brexit is having on the aviation industry?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady should not believe everything she reads in the papers. The discussions taking place between my Department and our counterparts in the United States have been cordial and have been going well. There are no issues that would act as an impediment towards a sensible post-Brexit agreement between the two countries.
Stuart C. McDonald
A key requirement in any deal with the US may well be that UK airlines are required to be UK majority owned, yet very few would be able to meet that standard. What are the realistic chances of the US ditching that long-standing policy for the sake of the UK?
Chris Grayling
Clearly, airline ownership is more complex as part of the European Union than it was in the pre-EU days, but nobody is seriously suggesting that we are not going to continue with the same kind of transatlantic partnerships we have at the moment. British Airways and American Airlines, for example, operate in lockstep with each other. We will progress in due time towards a sensible agreement that continues the extremely prosperous, important and successful transatlantic aviation routes.
Peter Grant
We have less than a year to sort this out. Already people who are attempting to book foreign holidays for next Easter, less than a year from now, are finding that they are having to accept a clause in the contract that waives any right to compensation if their holiday is cancelled because of problems with the lack of an open skies agreement. Is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that those reports from reputable travel agents are myths that we should not believe? Is it not a fact that the travel industry and the aviation industry understand how serious this problem is becoming and the Government, in their complacency, do not?
Chris Grayling
That is not accurate at all, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he listens to the chief executives of the International Airlines Group, EasyJet or a number of other airlines. I have had no airline, bar one, come to my desk and suggest that they are concerned about the situation. I think we know which the one is, and no other airline believes there is any likelihood of any impediment to aviation next year. Indeed, there will not be. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker, a situation where the Spanish, Italian, Portuguese or Greek Governments did not want holidaymakers to arrive from the United Kingdom in 2019? I have spoken to my counterparts and they snort with derision at the idea that the planes will not fly.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Snorting with derision may be the response the Secretary of State has had, but people in my constituency who work in the aviation industry are really concerned about how we are going to function outwith the European Aviation Safety Agency. Will he please tell us a bit more about how we are going to function outwith the EASA?
Chris Grayling
The Civil Aviation Authority is making all preparations necessary if it needs to return to operating as a body in the form that it used to be in. However, it is the Government’s policy and our intent to remain part of EASA. There is no reason not to: countries inside and outside the European Union are part of it, and we supply a substantial proportion of its expertise. The leadership of EASA wants us to stay, and I am confident that, as we get through the process of negotiation, that is where we will end up.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
In September 2016, the Government published a rail freight strategy setting out a vision for how the freight industry can grow. During control period 5, the Department is investing £235 million to improve the capacity of the network. Further funding for investment in the network will be available in control period 6.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Minister for his answer, but is the reality not that only a small proportion of freight in Britain is carried by rail, and that it has been declining? By contrast, a third of all freight in Germany is transported by rail, and in the US the figure is 50%. To achieve a substantial modal shift in freight from road to rail, is it not essential to introduce a much bigger programme—a major programme—of investment in rail freight capacity starting very soon?
Joseph Johnson
We share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to support modal shift. The Government are always interested in hearing about ambitious schemes that would encourage that. As he will know, we recently launched a call for ideas for market-led proposals that will enhance the railway, and I encourage him to take part in that.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Residents in north Oxford are gravely concerned about the increase in rail freight and particularly the possibility of the line being used to construct HS2. Children are already shaken out of their beds in the middle of the night because of freight trains. Will the Minister consent to meet me to discuss the concerns and, critically, the solutions, which include monitoring and speed reductions for the trains?
Joseph Johnson
I obviously sympathise with the hon. Lady’s local residents. The Government are committed to getting freight off our roads and on to rail to realise the environmental and economic benefits of rail freight. However, the Department does not specify the level of freight services on the network, as that is a commercial matter for the freight operating companies and is a function of market demand. The Oxford area is essentially at capacity during the day, although the Oxford corridor capacity improvement scheme will deliver two additional freight train paths an hour in each direction. It is anticipated that rail will support the movement of construction materials for HS2, but it is not possible at this stage to determine where the freight services will operate. The maximum permissible speed that freight trains can travel at over sections of the network is a matter for Network Rail as the infrastructure manager.
Mr Speaker
It is very good indeed to see the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) back in his place.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
The Secretary of State’s ambition is for bi-modes to begin operating on the midland main line from 2021. No firm decision has yet been taken on rail services in the next east midlands franchise, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, starts in August 2019.
Mr Betts
In the written statement that the Secretary of State made on 20 July, he promised, when cancelling electrification of the midland main line,
“a brand new fleet of bi-mode…trains from 2022”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 72WS.]
We seem to have gained a year somehow. The National Audit Office then said in a report from 29 March:
“In the case of Midland Main Line, bi-mode trains with the required speed and acceleration did not exist when the Secretary of State made his decision”,
and that the Department had informed him of that. I ask the Secretary of State or the Minister why the Secretary of State promised in his written statement to deliver bi-modal trains, which he knew not merely did not exist but had not even been developed. That is the situation. Why, at the time, did he not give the House the full facts instead of leading us to believe something that possibly was not true and was corrected only when the NAO produced its report?
Joseph Johnson
Bi-mode trains capable of running at more than 120 mph in diesel mode are now in use on the Great Western main line. Bi-modes will soon be delivering better journeys on the east coast main line and transpennine routes as well.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am sorry, but that answer simply will not do. In relation to the midland main line, the NAO report reveals that at the time when the decision was made, the Secretary of State knew that bi-mode trains had “a poorer investment case” than electrification and would be worse polluters—actually, 25 times worse for carbon emissions. He also knew that the rolling stock required for that line—this is the crucial point in relation to the Minister’s response—would not exist, yet none of that information was in his statement to the House cancelling electrification. Does the Minister not accept that those were serious omissions?
Joseph Johnson
On the contrary, equivalent trains to the ones that will be in service were already operational. As I have just said, bi-mode trains that are capable of running at more than 120 mph in diesel mode are already now in use on the Great Western main line.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Prime Minister and I discussed Cardiff to Swansea at the time, and reached the view that spending hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and causing massive disruption to passengers to enable the same trains to travel on the same route at the same speed to the same timetable as they do today was not actually a sensible thing to do.
Jonathan Edwards
We know from press reports issued during the Easter break that the Prime Minister personally made the decision to renege on an election promise to electrify the main line to Swansea on the basis of cost. Is not the reality that the British Government do not consider the west of my country worthy of investment?
Chris Grayling
We made the decisions about electrification on the midland main line and the line between Cardiff and Swansea on the simple basis that spending hundreds of millions or billions of pounds to achieve the same journey times in the same trains was not sensible. The trains on the Great Western route are already in operation, delivering services to people in Swansea, for whom it is a great and important investment. Trains on the midland main line require the addition of one engine to provide a little bit of extra acceleration, but they already exist, and will be great for that line as well. So let us hear none of this nonsense from Opposition Members. In fact, during the years when they were in government, this was their policy: they believed that what was important was capacity and delivery, not electrification, and I agreed with them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Facts matter. In a written statement on 20 July last year, the Secretary of State said that with bi-mode trains it would be possible to
“achieve the same significant improvements to journeys”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 72WS.]
However, as we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), it is clear from National Audit Office reports that that statement cannot be correct.
Rachael Maskell
No, this was about the Cardiff to Swansea route as well.
Why did the Secretary of State give those assurances? Now that he has come to the Dispatch Box, will he apologise?
Chris Grayling
Let us be clear. I stand by every word that I said then. We will deliver smart new trains and improved journey times for passengers on the midland main line, as we are currently doing and will continue to do on the Great Western main line, and as we will do on the east coast main line and the transpennine route. [Interruption.] As I have said, we will also deliver new trains providing better services for passengers on the midland main line. The only difference made by £1 billion of spending would be a one-minute saving in the journey time, and that is not good value for taxpayers’ money.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that this is such an important matter, surely we should have a point of order on it.
Mr Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman will know on the strength of his nearly 39 years of experience in the House, the effect of a point of order during exchanges on a question is to cause all further exchanges on it immediately to cease. Fortunately for the hon. Gentleman, he does not risk becoming hugely unpopular as a result of his attempted point of order, for the simple reason that no one else was standing and seeking to catch my eye—other than the hon. Gentleman with his rather bogus, albeit enjoyable, point of order.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
The Secretary of State’s strategic vision for rail was published in November 2017, and sets out our key reforms. Better teamwork between franchise operators and Network Rail will make the railway more responsive to customers’ needs and move power closer to local areas.
Luke Hall
South Gloucestershire Council is pushing ahead with its plans to deliver a vital half-hourly train link from Yate to Bristol. Will my hon. Friend explain how his rail policies will help to achieve that, and will he consider visiting Yate so that he can see at first hand how important the upgrade is to our local community?
Joseph Johnson
Improving connectivity around our great cities, including Bristol, is exactly the kind of scheme that our reforms are designed to deliver. The Government will continue to work closely with local partners to deliver the MetroWest scheme in the Bristol area. We are also examining the potential for the new MetroWest services to be extended beyond their currently planned termini.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Tarmac’s Dunbar cement plant in East Lothian transports substantial amounts of its product down the east coast main line to London to fuel the construction industry here. What steps is the Minister taking, as part of his plan, to facilitate better engagement between passengers, rail freight users and Network Rail commuters?
Joseph Johnson
That is an important subject, which we hope the new east coast partnership will help to address.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on his engagement to Ann-Louise Whittaker, and may I say to the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the fact that he is a very young man to be planning to rush into matrimony, we all wish him and Ann-Louise a very happy wedding on Friday 27 July?
Robert Neill
That is very kind, Mr Speaker; Ann-Louise and I are very grateful to you.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
I echo your good wishes to my hon. Friend, Mr Speaker.
All train operators must deliver the performance benchmarks set out in the franchise agreements that cover all their passenger services. In respect of Southeastern’s metro service, its public performance measure has improved from 87% to nearly 89% over the past year.
Robert Neill
Is the Minister not concerned, first, that many of the regular commuters on our line do not regard the performance measures as reflecting reality, particularly in the rush hour, and, secondly, that Network Rail only a couple of days ago published a suggestion that performance will actually deteriorate over the next coming years and will not pick up again until 2024? I would like our wedding guests to come on the train, but I do not think I can advise them to do so at the moment; does the Minister agree that the situation is wholly unacceptable, and what will he do about it?
Joseph Johnson
We are working closely with Network Rail to ensure punctual and reliable services on the network. We are ensuring it is doing everything it possibly can to maintain and build upon the current improving levels of performance. My hon. Friend mentioned the performance targets: the operator will be required as part of the next franchise arrangements to publish on its website in relation to each reporting period its performance against the following metrics: cancellation figures, short formation figures, and now, critically, timing to three minutes, rather than the previous performance targets.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself and my hon. Friends with your kind words to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and wish him all the best?
When I arrived at my station this morning, they were handing out free copies of fiction: the Southeastern rail timetable. It is fiction because of not just the performance of Southeastern, but the poor infrastructure that we have to endure. We have spent £1 billion upgrading London Bridge, and it is a magnificent project, but unfortunately we have seen broken rails and the breakdown of signals last week and the week before, and there was another stranded train outside St Johns station on 5 April. This is not good enough: we need to upgrade the infrastructure around London Bridge, otherwise all the money will have been wasted.
Joseph Johnson
In the next franchise period we will ensure that performance in quality is an absolute focus for the new operator. When that is in place moving towards next year, the new franchisee will adopt the new measures we have proposed as part of the move towards control period 6. The use of a public performance measure that allows services to arrive up to five minutes late at end destination will be replaced by timed to three, or T3, and that measure will be used for the services along this route.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Like my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I wish the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) all the best.
After years of disruption due to the London Bridge rebuild, passengers discovered last week that Greenwich line evening services will not be of the frequency previously advertised after May because, according to Southeastern, it does not have enough drivers. Can Ministers do anything about this frankly risible situation?
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that concern to my attention, and I will discuss it with Southeastern.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The current driver licensing arrangements take into account the risks that an individual poses to road safety and are designed to be fair and proportionate to all drivers who remain fit and competent to drive, regardless of age. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency keeps all its medical driver licensing policy and processes under review.
Kevin Foster
The Minister will be aware that the current system of car driving licence renewal includes no requirement at all for independent medical evidence to ensure that a driver’s health or eyesight meet the legal requirements. Does he agree that this self-certification process is inadequate and open to abuse, and will he agree to review it?
Jesse Norman
There is no evidence—certainly none that we are aware of or that has been brought to our attention—to suggest that requiring independent medical evidence in relation to a driver’s health or eyesight would lead to an improvement in road safety. The current process is balanced and proportionate, and focuses resources on drivers who need medical investigation. Those drivers—in fact, all drivers—are legally obliged to notify the DVLA if they develop a medical condition that could affect their ability to drive safely. Where a driver has failed to do so, the DVLA will investigate notifications from concerned friends, relatives, the police or medical professionals.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The road investment strategy announced the Government’s intention to develop a scheme to upgrade the A45 between Stanwick and Thrapston to a full dual carriageway. The scheme is at an early stage of development and a preliminary environmental study will be carried out as part of this development work.
Tom Pursglove
This dualling is something that I have campaigned particularly hard for. It has the overwhelming support of local people and would do much to improve the strategically important link between the A14 and the M1. The environmental study is key to progress, so will the Minister join me in pushing for that work to be carried out as soon as possible?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend has been a tireless and energetic campaigner on this issue, as on so many others, and I can assure him that the environmental study will be one of the first items to be completed under the options assessment work.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
From the day phase 1 opens, HS2 trains will run directly to Scotland, with journey times of less than four hours between London and Glasgow. When the full Y network opens, HS2 will serve both Glasgow and Edinburgh in three hours 40 minutes to London. The Department for Transport is working closely with Transport Scotland and Network Rail to look at further options that might have a good business case, working towards the UK and Scottish Governments’ shared ultimate ambition of a three-hour journey time between London and Scotland.
Mr Sweeney
Will the Minister guarantee that, once HS2 is fully constructed, the journey time between Glasgow and Manchester will not be any longer than it is currently?
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In his autumn statement of 2011, the Chancellor announced a commitment to contribute £50 million towards the cost of improving and upgrading the Caledonian sleeper service, including rolling stock and infrastructure improvements. We understand that new rolling stock will start to be introduced in the autumn. Under the devolved arrangements relating to the railways in Scotland, the Caledonian sleeper service is the responsibility of the Scottish Government and operates under a franchise procured by Scottish Ministers.
Jamie Stone
The northern sleeper service is good for the environment, stress-free, fun and actually rather romantic. Does the Minister agree that further development would do much to boost tourism in the highlands and in my constituency?
Ms Ghani
We do like romance, and the new trains will offer improved facilities, comfort, hospitality and security for passengers. Passengers’ experience will be enhanced, supported by improved ticketing, booking channels and information, station improvements and support for post-travel arrangements. Staying on the theme of romance, I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in disability and access, for which these trains will be suitable, as he has a close family member with disability issues.
Mr Speaker
That sounds like a very agreeable adventure to me. I must obviously add it to my bucket list.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In November 2016, the Government confirmed the majority of the HS2 phase 2b route and launched a consultation on seven route refinements. The Government made a decision on the phase 2b route in July 2017. To deposit the phase 2b hybrid Bill in 2019, HS2 Ltd is developing designs for the working draft environmental statement. The Government have provided funding for growth strategies to HS2 places, enabling the plans to be HS2-ready.
Graham Stringer
Can the Minister assure the House that the hybrid Bill for HS2 phase 2b will take precedence over Crossrail 2?
Ms Ghani
Consideration of the hybrid Bill will take place when it is due to take place in Parliament. It is interesting to note that we have had a lot of support from Members across the House; it would be nice for that support to be reflected when the Bill comes to the House, with all Members voting to support it rather than abstaining.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
We seem to have a lot of jobs created by HS2 in the midlands. How many have been created so far?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is a passionate campaigner for the midlands and any opportunity I have to talk proudly about Birmingham in particular, is welcome. Over its course, HS2 will create 100,000 jobs. It is important to note that the majority of those jobs will be created outside London, so opportunities will be vast along the line.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
The Secretary of State and I have periodic discussions with our counterparts in our partner countries on a range of issues.
Patrick Grady
Well, can the Minister tell us, then, whether, as the question says, those discussions have included the concept of a new fixed link? The Foreign Secretary seems to think that it is a very good idea, but I am not clear whether anyone else in the Government or the Cabinet does.
Joseph Johnson
This is certainly an idea worth exploring. I repeat that this is a view shared not just in this Government but in the French Government. The hon. Gentleman will recall that at the conclusion of the highly successful Anglo-French summit it was agreed that there would be a committee of wise people, a comité des sages, established to consider reviving the tradition of UK-French collaboration on a range of matters, including infrastructure projects.
Mr Speaker
Well, I would call the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) if he were here, but he isn’t, so I won’t.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
We spend a lot of time talking about planes, trains and automobiles in these sessions, but we do not spend much time talking about ships. I want to pay tribute to all those involved in the talks that took place in London last week, particularly those from my Department. They paved the way for an historic agreement in the maritime sector on cutting carbon emissions from shipping. It is a really important step forward and I commend all those involved.
Maggie Throup
Will the Secretary of State visit Long Eaton as a matter of urgency to visit those property owners directly affected by HS2, some of whom are facing the prospect of being tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket? Will he reaffirm his commitment to the House today that no one will lose out as a result of HS2?
Chris Grayling
I know that we have particular issues with some of the properties in Long Eaton, particularly the railway cottages. I have worked and will continue to work closely with my hon. Friend to ensure that HS2 does the right thing by those people.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On “Question Time”, the Secretary of State intimated that, post Brexit, trucks will not be checked and will move freely through the border, as happens in Canada and the US. I have an official document that confirms that all lorries are stopped on the US-Canada border. Will he apologise for giving out duff information, do his homework and tell the House what the concrete plans will be post Brexit?
Chris Grayling
As I have said before—I say it again today—there will not be physical checks that require every lorry to be stopped at Dover. It is not physically possible to do it, and in today’s world of trusted trader systems and electronic processing of customs information, there is no need for that to happen. I would also say that we are confident that we will deliver, as is our intention, a sensible free trade agreement with the European Union that will make all this an irrelevant discussion.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend knows that I have been to Southport and talked to some of those affected. As a result of those recent discussions, we have been able to put back in two extra services to Manchester Piccadilly. Of course, the original franchise plan was for the services to go to Manchester Victoria, but I have listened carefully to what has been said. Timetable changes cannot happen quickly and easily, but I will do my best to work with my hon. Friend to ensure that there is a better mix of services for the future.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
With free bus travel for the under-25s estimated at £1.4 billion a year, why is the Minister opposing a scheme that could benefit up to 13 million young people, saving them up to £1,000 each a year, at a time when they face significant financial hardship due to tuition fees and the high cost of living?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
This was an intriguing policy proposed by Labour at the Budget, and the figures did not seem to add up. At one point Labour was saying it would cost just over £1 billion, but it looks like it might cost closer to £13 billion. The hon. Gentleman needs to go back to school and add up his figures. We already provide £1 billion towards concessionary travel to support up to 10 million older people, and disabled people, too. I would be intrigued to know whether Labour has budgeted for this concessionary travel to be before or after 9.30 am.
Matt Rodda
Can the Minister explain how she has calculated that figure of £13 billion? Research by University College London, which is widely accepted across the sector, shows that every individual person in the UK could be given free bus travel for £5 billion.
Ms Ghani
The figures have already changed from around £1 billion to the projected figure of over £13 billion, and now to £5 billion. When the shadow Minister makes proposals, and if he wants not only the sector but young people to take them seriously, I suggest that he comes to the Dispatch Box with the most accurate figure that comes to hand. We are doing what we can to support bus patronage, including enabling local authorities to work with bus providers to make sure that people can make the most requested journeys. I must add that we already provide over £1 billion-worth of concessionary travel to older people and to those with disabilities, and perhaps we could take Labour’s proposal more seriously if the figures added up.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
That is a great question. As my hon. Friend will know, the pothole action fund is part of a £6 billion fund we are spending on local highways between 2015 and 2021, including £105 million for highways maintenance in the West Midlands combined authority, which includes Walsall. We ask that highways authorities provide a statement on their websites on how they utilise the pothole action fund money they have been allocated and, of course, we review and assess how that money is spent. We are always looking for, and seeking to incentivise, best practice.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady will know, we have spent more money than any Government have ever spent in this country on tackling air quality issues. We are working very closely with local authorities, including Bristol, to do that. Something like £400 million is already in prospect to support local authorities in this regard, and we look forward to seeing further action by Bristol and other local authorities to support it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I was alarmed to learn that Govia Thameslink Railway is planning to cut Great Northern services at Oakleigh Park station in the morning peak. GTR has promised me it will restore the services when new rolling stock is introduced this year. Will the Minister work with me to hold it to that promise?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
I would be delighted to work with my right hon. Friend to address the issue she raises.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman notes, we are in the process of seeking to apply EU law as it applies to community transport. We have launched a review to explore several specific workarounds that address the concerns that community transport operators may have. We look forward to the completion of that review, and we will be publishing our own thoughts as a result, based on the substantial input we have gathered.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The bioethanol industry and the farming community that supplies it are looking for some certainty about the introduction of E10. Is the Minister able to give a clear steer as to when they can expect that certainty and whether the Government will be giving support?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have taken a very important forward position by introducing the renewable transport fuel obligation. We are looking closely at E10, and at international precedents and examples as to how enhanced ethanol fuels have been brought into play. It is important to respect market dynamics, so this is a slightly tricky issue, on which we are spending some time and consideration.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Yesterday, my hon. Friend—my very good friend—the Minister of State responded to an Adjournment debate on impacts of the timetable changes of the Thameslink programme. He said that Members were welcome to suggest changes where there had been negative impacts. May I suggest to him that the reduction in services from Orpington to Victoria via Bromley South is precisely such a negative change, which should be looked at urgently?
Joseph Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, that matter is close to my heart and I will be paying extraordinary attention to it in the coming months.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Ms Ghani
We have been reviewing our accessibility plan within the Department and will be reviewing how we deal with shared spaces. The hon. Gentleman knows that I used to chair the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment, which has huge concerns about shared spaces. We will be making a statement on this shortly. We want to make sure that all of our spaces, especially those around transport infrastructure, are accessible for people with all disabilities.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Reopening Middlewich railway station to passengers is a matter of crucial importance to many of my constituents. What progress is being made on developing the business case for that?
Joseph Johnson
I know there is strong local support for improvements to the rail network in Cheshire. I am pleased to confirm that the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership is in the process of establishing a working group with local authority partners and Network Rail to examine the feasibility of reopening the mid-Cheshire link railway line, including Middlewich station, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and that the Department has offered to provide advice.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
A few weeks ago, we had the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the free bus pass scheme for pensioners, which is a hugely popular policy. What efforts did the Department make to mark that anniversary? What assurances can the Minister give pensioners about the future of the scheme?
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Secretary of State has long taken a personal interest in the Boston bypass. Will he join me in commending the excellent campaign being run by my local paper, the Boston Standard, which is gathering evidence from local hauliers, in particular? Does he agree that it bolsters an already compelling case for an application to be made to his bypass fund for this road in due course?
Chris Grayling
As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited the proposed site of the Boston bypass on more than one occasion over the years. I know that a vigorous campaign has been run by his local paper, local activists and himself. You will know, Mr Speaker, that we will shortly be bringing forward the next stage of our proposals for what I have dubbed the “bypass fund”, and there will be opportunities to build bypasses in the not-too-distant future.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Ms Ghani
I am a bit confused as to where the hon. Gentleman read that, because we have not refused any authorities. We are trying to help local authorities to manage their bus services and work with bus operators to deliver the best service that they think is needed at local level. The decision is best made locally. On top of that, we have spent £250 million to support bus services in England via the bus service operators grant, and £40 million of that goes towards supporting concessionary travel at a local level.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a renowned blue-sky thinker, so does he imagine that any time soon, or even some day in the future, people will be able to get on an HS2 train in Manchester or Glasgow and go non-stop to the European continent?
Chris Grayling
For a moment, I thought my hon. Friend was going to ask me whether people would be able to get on an HS2 train in Manchester and travel to Lichfield. Of course, it always depends on the market. When the first trains started to operate through the channel tunnel, a fleet of trains was bought to provide links from the north of England through to the continent, but the market was never there—although one never says never.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Hussey family and I are grateful for the Minister’s support following Freddie’s tragic death in 2014, and we will welcome him to Bristol next week for a trailer safety summit. On Tuesday, the other place agreed to improve trailer safety measures; is the Minister willing to share his view of their lordships’ decision?
Jesse Norman
I have greatly enjoyed the chance to work with the hon. Lady on the issues that she describes, and I am very much looking forward to attending her trailer safety summit next week. The Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill will come to this House in due course, so we will then have a chance to look at what their lordships have said.
Points of Order
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We discussed in Transport questions the cancellation of line electrification throughout the country. The Secretary of State said in the recess last summer that the bi-mode alternatives could achieve the same significant improvements to journeys. The National Audit Office, on which we rely—it is not Opposition Members saying this—has said that
“bi-mode trains with the required speed and acceleration”
to meet the timetable
“did not exist”.
The Secretary of State has had the opportunity today to correct the position. The two statements are mutually exclusive and he cannot maintain that position. It is important that Ministers of the Crown come to the Dispatch Box and say things that are grounded in fact. There is a danger, however inadvertent, that the House has been misled about these trains’ ability to deliver, as my hon. Friends have pointed out repeatedly, yet the Secretary of State will not take the opportunity to clarify the position. I seek your advice as to how that clarification might be achieved, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State is now poised, like a panther ready to pounce, so the hon. Gentleman may have secured, if not pre-empted, at any rate, early gratification, in that the Secretary of State is marching towards the Dispatch Box.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is self-evident that last January, when we discussed these issues, the trains that will run on the midland main line had not been ordered and therefore did not exist. As things stand today—as things stood last summer and last April—there are already 120 mph-plus bi-mode trains operating on the Great Western main line. I have manufacturers beating a path to my door to build the trains for the midland main line; of course they are going to run.
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the shadow Secretary of State is that he has made his point with force and alacrity, it is on the record, and the Secretary of State has responded in a similar vein. This dispute—it is a genuine dispute about what the facts are—can and doubtless will continue, but by means other than the point of order procedure. I hope that honour is served.
Mr Speaker
Just as I am about to proceed to the next business, I see leaping to his feet, with his characteristic energy and suppleness, the young representative from Stone, Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you regard the outrageous abuse and intimidation that has been levelled against the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and others as sufficient evidence of a contempt of the House? Page 262 of “Erskine May” states that it is a contempt of the House to molest and intimidate MPs by abusive language outside or inside the precincts of the House. Is there a prima facie case for contempt in the circumstances that I have described, with this completely and totally outrageous behaviour by members of the public towards those Members?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I treat extremely seriously. I do so partly because of the content and partly in deference to his renowned parliamentarianism. The short answer is that there could be such a case. The particulars would have to be studied and it would be imprudent, and therefore inappropriate, for me to seek to venture a judgment here and now. However, as he will know, if there is an allegation of contempt to be made, it should properly be made in writing to me and I will then reflect on it, taking such professional advice as I think I need, but I thank him for raising this point of order, which I know he does out of a concern to protect the rights of Members in all parts of the House. Any Member could be similarly affected, and he has done a public service. Knowing his dogged tenacity and his insistence on following through, I imagine that his letter will be winging its way to me ere long.
Business of the House
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will include:
Monday 23 April—Second Reading of the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill followed by motion relating to a statutory instrument on the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
Tuesday 24 April—Remaining stages of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords] followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill.
Wednesday 25 April—Opposition day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on schools followed by a debate on social care. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion. Followed by debate on a motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
Thursday 26 April—Debate on a motion on customs and borders followed by debate on a motion on plastic bottles and coffee cups. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 27 April—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 30 April will include:
Monday 30 April—Remaining stages of the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords].
This has been a key week for Parliament. The Prime Minister took part in more than nine hours of debate on Syria, and with the Report stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill under way in the other place, we continue to shape our future outside the European Union. Members across both Houses have held Government to account, scrutinised decisions and debated matters of national and global importance, putting the vital role of Parliament beyond any doubt.
It has been our privilege to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting this week, and I have personally enjoyed the opportunity to meet delegates from around the world. I want to thank them for the generosity of time and spirit that they have shown.
Finally, we send our best wishes to another place with which we have strong ties: Israel marks the 70th anniversary of its independence day today. This week’s hugely important debate on anti-Semitism has shown that we must continue to uphold the British tradition of freedom of religion. To all those celebrating, I wish them a very happy day.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I also thank her for Monday’s motion relating to the statutory instrument on higher education, Tuesday’s motion to approve the money resolution—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) will be delighted, because the business was cancelled again earlier this week—and for our Opposition day.
This seems a bit churlish, but we do need to have the Report stage of the Data Protection Bill, we are still waiting for the nurses bursaries statutory instrument and the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 need to be revoked and relaid, because we are running out of time.
I, too, welcome the Commonwealth Heads of Government here to the 25th summit. They will know that a speech given to the Conservative association in Birmingham 50 years ago by a former Member of the House, Enoch Powell, was in response to immigration from the Commonwealth and the proposed Race Relations Bill. I remember my parents being alarmed at the speech—broadcasting it again was unnecessary—but they and other visible minorities were somewhat reassured by the stance of the then Prime Minister, the great reforming Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who, despite those inflammatory words, passed the Race Relations Act 1968.
It was chilling, therefore, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) had to ask for—and was granted it by you, Mr Speaker—an urgent question on the unjust treatment of British citizens who came from Commonwealth countries; I and 134 other Members across the House signed the letter to the Prime Minister. The Home Secretary said it was wrong and appalling, but came to the House only in response to the UQ. British citizens now in their 60s and 70s are losing the right to work, rent property, receive their pensions and access their bank accounts and vital healthcare, and some have even been deported. These cases can be dealt with immediately.
The presumption should be that those people are here legally, not illegally. The destruction or shredding of landing cards is a distraction. It is only as a result of 2014 Government policy that evidence is required, and landing cards are only one form of such evidence; there are others, including tax returns, national insurance numbers and NHS numbers. Can we, therefore, have a statement next week so that the Home Secretary can tell the House what she appeared not to know earlier this week—how many people are affected, how many have been deported, how many are in detention centres? My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary met a woman in Yarl’s Wood whose parents were both British citizens. Why do we not know these figures? The Home Office has no direction—it is Rudderless. The Secretary of State and Ministers have to direct what a Department does. That is why the series was called “Yes, Minister”—because Ministers have the civil servants who respond to what they want.
I want to highlight another injustice—that affecting students in receipt of disabled students’ allowances. With changes to DSA, a £200 up-front fee was applied across the board and not means-tested, which has resulted in a nearly 30% reduction in the number of students taking up vital equipment that could help them to work independently. Some 20% of students at the Royal Agricultural University are in receipt of DSA. We need their skills, so we need them to qualify, particularly because, as the Leader of the House said, we are leaving the EU. Can we have a debate, therefore, so that the Government can look again at removing that £200 up-front fee?
The Backbench Business Committee, not the Government, agreed to a debate on customs and borders. Opposition analysis shows that 44% of Brexit legislation is still to be introduced: Bills on immigration, fisheries, and the withdrawal agreement and implementation. Last June, the Prime Minister said that this Parliament would have a busy legislative Session, but the Government have passed only four Bills since the last Queen’s Speech and not a single piece of Brexit legislation. Given that 11 Bills will have to go through the House before the end of the transition period, will the Leader of the House publish a timetable or a grid like that produced by the Institute for Government, and will she confirm whether the EU withdrawal Bill—which is being considered by the other place, where Members have agreed they want to be in a customs union—will come before this House in the week commencing 21 May?
I know that the Government do not like to come to Parliament, but I was a bit saddened to read in The House magazine—we like The House magazine, particularly when we are in it, although in my case that is not very often—an article on restoration and renewal. The right approach would have been to make that statement to this Chamber, given that so many Members on both sides took part in the debate and were concerned about it. I know that some decisions are already in train, and it would have been appropriate to come to the House.
I recently had to take part in a rally in opposition to the English Defence League. For the very first time, it was allowed to assemble right next to our peace and unity rally near St Paul’s at the Crossing in Walsall. I now have to write three letters to ascertain who was responsible for that decision—and there were breaches of the peace. In the evening, I heard the testimony of Janine Webber, a child of the holocaust. She told us that her grandmother, father and mother were murdered, and she said that when they took her brother away, she wondered why they let her go. She would have been saddened by what happened, but proud at the debate—at the dignity of all our colleagues who took part and at how they have opposed anti-Semitism. I hope that the time comes when we judge each other not on the colour of our skin, not on our religion and not on our gender, but just on who we are.
Finally, on a slightly happier note, I wish the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), a very happy birthday on Saturday—a birthday he shares with Her Majesty.
Valerie Vaz
Every year. I wish Her Majesty a happy birthday, and we thank her for her service to the country and to the Commonwealth.
Andrea Leadsom
I join the hon. Lady in wishing the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee and Her Majesty very happy birthdays for Saturday. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is slightly younger than Her Majesty, but I am sure he would not venture to suggest by how much.
The hon. Lady has raised a number of important points. I am glad she is glad that we have debates on the higher education statutory instrument, the money resolution and Opposition motions scheduled for next week. We are, in fact, extraordinarily busy, and I would like to remind her of some of the achievements so far. We have introduced 27 Bills in this Session so far, including the seminal European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and other very important legislation that she mentioned, such as that on the general data protection regulation—I assure her that we are very aware of the impending deadline, and proceedings will be brought forward very soon.
We have had 11 Bills sent for Royal Assent already, including the Space Industry Bill—a fantastic opportunity to build the new skilled jobs of the future. We have six Brexit Bills before Parliament at the moment—the withdrawal Bill and Bills on nuclear safeguards, customs, trade, sanctions and road haulage. Of course, hundreds of statutory instruments have also been passed by each House. In addition, we have seven draft Bills published in this Session, and I will not detain the House any longer by naming them all.
However, I want to make the point to the hon. Lady that, in fact, we are achieving a lot, and I am delighted that that is the case. I am also delighted that the House is taking such an active part in not only the legislative programme, but some of the vital debates we have had just this week—that is incredibly important.
On the Windrush generation, which the hon. Lady raised, I can only again apologise. These individuals are British; they have absolutely every right to be here. What has happened is incredibly regrettable. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have apologised without reservation, and I do so again today. The Home Office is determined to put this right in short order, and that is what it is absolutely focused on doing.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of a fee, which I am sorry to say I am not aware of. If I may, I will investigate and come back to her. She asked when the EU withdrawal Bill will come back. As she knows, there are no programme motions, so their lordships will send it back to us in due course. Of course, we will consider all attempts to improve legislation, as we always do, and we will respond in due course to amendments that have been passed in the other place.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of the restoration and renewal of the Palace. I am sorry if she thinks there was some sort of statement. In fact, the article in The House magazine was merely an attempt to keep Members’ interest in the subject. I am, of course, delighted to talk to her about progress at any time. As soon as there is substantive progress—for example, once we have recruited the internal and external members for the shadow sponsor body—there will be the opportunity to debate that in this place.
Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, Janine Webber. It sounds as if that was harrowing testimony, and I am sure all of us in the House absolutely support the hon. Lady’s view that we should consider each other for who we are, not for where we come from or what we believe in.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend about two statutory instruments that were laid just before Easter, which are designed to abolish Christchurch Borough Council against its will? Will she assure me that neither of those instruments will be brought forward for debate until there has been a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to which I have written pointing out that one of those statutory instruments seeks to change primary legislation and to do so retrospectively, with hybrid effect and in breach of Government undertakings to Parliament?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a serious matter, although it is not something of which I am aware right now. If he allows me, I will certainly look into it and write to him.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I also extend birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). I always tell him that he is the finest Chair of the Backbench Business Committee that we have. I wish all London marathon participants from the House all the best on Sunday. A record 18 MPs will be running, including two Scottish National party Members of Parliament—Lightspeed Linden and Supermac Stuart McDonald—who will be running for charity.
Regardless of what the Leader of the House says, this has not been one of her finest weeks in the job. The structuring of parliamentary business at the beginning of this week was an utter shambles. I do not know what she was thinking in trying to discuss the Syrian air strikes in a debate under Standing Order No. 24; she is in charge of the business, for goodness’ sake. It is ridiculous that I am having to tell her that she could have tabled a motion on Syrian air strikes at any time. I ask her once again: will she now table a proper, amendable motion with a full day’s debate on the situation in Syria?
And what about the heroes in ermine, eh? The tribunes of the people and the red remoaners, who have somehow managed to thwart the Government’s chaotic and clueless Brexit? When I look around at my Conservative friends, I wonder whether some of them might now be a little more disposed to dealing with the House down the corridor, which is a national embarrassment, even though its Members are doing the right thing this time. I am saying to Conservative Members of this House, come on and join us! Let us get rid of the Lords from the face of our democracy, because it is an utter national embarrassment to this country and to what we call our democracy.
We need a full debate on what has happened regarding the Windrush generation; the cases and issues are getting more alarming and concerning. We have now heard that the policy described as creating a “hostile environment” passed in the Immigration Act 2014—supported by the Labour party, it has to be said—was opposed and objected to by Ministers and civil servants. But it certainly informed the whole approach to the Windrush victims.
Now, I am not against hostile environments. In fact, I would quite like a hostile environment for Faragist-informed Conservative Ministers, but this issue will not go away; it is going to get worse and worse for this Government. They should have learnt lessons from the Syrian air strikes, and come to the House with a proper motion and a full debate on what is happening on this appalling issue.
Andrea Leadsom
Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman were to participate in the London marathon himself, he might be a little distracted and less willing to let his blood pressure get as high as it obviously has today. I certainly congratulate his hon. Friends and all Members who are taking part in the London marathon; they are definitely braver than me.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the order of business this week. Mr Speaker, I know that you shared the desire of all Members across the House to see urgent debates on the subject. The Prime Minister herself applied for such a debate, on the grounds that the only practical way to change the order of business on a given day is through an urgent debate request.
Mr Speaker was pleased to grant an urgent debate to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). All hon. Members, including Conservatives, were pleased to stand in support of that. As the Prime Minister said, she was determined to be held accountable for her actions by the House. There was no question about it. At the same time, she also made it very clear that it was vital that she took action in such a way as would protect our armed forces, secrecy around the limited nature of the targets and secrecy around the extent of the operation, in order for that operation to be effective.
Following the Prime Minister’s action, which was entirely within the conventions of the House, she came to the House—facilitated in no small part by Mr Speaker himself—and made a three-and-a-quarter-hour statement, answering 140 individual questions. She then took part in a debate, answering 27 individual interventions from right hon. and hon. Members. She also took part in a further urgent debate the following day. It is simply unfair and ungenerous to suggest that anybody in this place was seeking to avoid accountability. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear about her intentions.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Coming into the House on Monday, I encountered, by chance, on the wireless an interview with the mother of a young boy murdered with a knife. In calling for tougher sentences and more stop-and-search, that mother chillingly declared that politicians did not care because their children were not at risk. I know, as you do, Mr Speaker, that people across this House do care. So, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on knife crime and the culture, which is gaining hold in our cities and elsewhere, that not only allows but celebrates the carrying and use of knives?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point that hon. Members across the House have previously raised. He is exactly right to point out that we have seen an increase in the appalling use of knives in fights, particularly among younger people, the causes of which are very complicated: the increased use of county lines, drug use and so on are partly responsible.
I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to take early action. We have had a number of discussions about what more can be done. In March, she launched a national knife crime media campaign across all channels, including billboards, to try to take young people away from this awful scourge. We are doing a great deal more intervention work in hospital A&Es, trying to appeal to those who have already experienced some sort of knife attack. We are awarding significant sums to community funds and to community groups who are tackling gangs and knife crime. My right hon. Friend has also launched the serious violence strategy. We will be bringing forward an offensive weapons Bill to try to limit access to and use of knives.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I have to say to the Leader of the House that I followed Her Majesty by some 31 years, so I am not just behind her, but despite my tender age, Tyne and Wear fire service has advised no candles on the cake this year.
I am glad to see from today’s Order Paper that the Backbench Business Committee is to get reinforcements in the shape of the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark). I am very glad that we have now got back our full complement. However, even with eight members and a quorum of four, it is sometimes difficult to get that quorum when members have been called away to Statutory Instrument Committees and so on. Could we please look at this again? It seems rather unfortunate to have a quorum of four for a Committee of eight.
I am afraid that it looks as though De La Rue has thrown in the towel on the production of UK passports in Britain. I would like a statement from the Home Secretary about exactly where and how our passports will be produced post-2020. De La Rue has done an awful lot of work in looking at the bids being put in by Gemalto in Paris. It seems to De La Rue—and to me, I think—that it is very likely, with the costs that have been provided, that post-2020 our passports will be produced, or mainly produced, in eastern Europe or in the far east. It is not a satisfactory situation, post Brexit, for the UK—an independent nation, proud of itself—to have its passports produced far, far away.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue of age. He would admit to being a young whippersnapper by comparison, I am sure.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about the quorum. I have taken soundings, as I said I would. The concerns are about whether a quorum below four is truly evidence of cross-party decision making. If he were to write to me, I could perhaps liaise with the Procedure Committee, which might be persuaded to look into this from a more formal point of view. I do understand the practical points he raises, but he will, I am sure, equally appreciate that, to be truly cross-party, four is a pretty small number of people to have in the decision-making process.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that De La Rue prints passports, security documents and money for countries right across the world. The UK, as we seek to leave the EU, will be a global champion for free trade, and so this cannot be one-sided. We need to accept that, just as our brilliant UK businesses generate income and profits from overseas, so other businesses must be able to compete in the UK market.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In relation to the point of order I raised a short time ago, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate—in consultation, of course, with the Privileges Committee—on the principles and practice by which the House deals with questions of molestation, abuse and intimidation of Members of Parliament, including on social media, and by reference not only to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), but to all others?
Andrea Leadsom
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend’s point of order and I am extremely sympathetic to it. As you will know, Mr Speaker, I have also raised with you the issue of how social media can be used to intimidate Members and, potentially, to put out slanted versions of what takes place in the Chamber. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend and will be happy to look into this if he wants to write to me. I know you have also asked him to raise it with you, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that the investigation by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee into fake news may look at these issues, and he will also be aware that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking carefully at an internet safety strategy for keeping young people safe online, and at seeking further ways to stamp out the sort of horrific abuse that has been described in the Chamber this week.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
In January 2013, Kevin Doherty was found guilty of the manslaughter of his partner Jane Harrison. It had taken 18 years to bring him to justice, and he is still to disclose the location of Jane’s body to her family. In January this year he was granted a transfer to an open prison without reference to the Harrison family. How is that just or fair? I have written to the Ministry of Justice without success four times seeking a meeting with the appropriate Minister. Perhaps only a debate on the treatment of the families of victims will elicit any justice for the Harrison family.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a truly harrowing case and I am sure that all Members send their deepest sympathy to the family of the victim. I am happy to take up the lack of response with the Ministry of Justice on her behalf if she would like to write to me.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I have the same situation. May we have a debate in Government time on local democracy? My locals have been stamped on and ignored, and now they are being told by the Secretary of State that they will have what they get. I have total sympathy with the situation in Christchurch, so may we have a debate on local democracy before it is trodden on by this Government?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important constituency point. He may wish to seek an Adjournment debate. I also draw his attention to the fact that Ministers from the Department will answer oral questions on 30 April—he may wish to raise the issue directly with them.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I join the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) in pressing the Leader of the House to have an urgent debate and a continuing report from the Home Secretary on the serious violence strategy she has announced. The young and the middle-aged in London and across the country are being stabbed and becoming the victims of violent crime. We are seeing huge increases in violent crime. This is an emergency for the Government and the House should discuss it regularly. Local communities, including Nottingham Forest Football Club and Notts County Football Club, are coming together to try to tackle and stand up against this increase in violent crime, but we need the Government to report regularly to Parliament on what they are doing to tackle this scourge.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must do everything we can. I have tried to set out how, through the serious violence strategy, the Government are seeking to provide funding for community efforts, and to use a national media campaign to take young people away from this seemingly attractive lifestyle of joining a gang and being involved in this appalling violence. We are working with young people who have already been stabbed and are in hospital, and trying to turn them away from that lifestyle before it is too late. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that more could be done, and I recommend that he seeks a Backbench Business Committee debate so that all Members can share their thoughts on the subject.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Understandable changes to the parliamentary timetable this week precluded the opportunity to debate the hugely important banking scandals, and the effect that they had on thousands of business people around the country. Will my right hon. Friend find Government time to debate that important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
I agree that that is an important issue. The loss of livelihoods following the financial crisis was a devastating blow for many people. I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s request away and see whether it can be accommodated.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House make available Government time for a debate to be led by the Prime Minister, in which she could explain that a logical consequence of her hostile immigration environment is the hurt caused to the Windrush citizens, and the creation of citizens of nowhere? She could also provide a guarantee that no Windrush citizens will be harassed by the Home Office, and that EU citizens in the UK who are applying for settled status will not be faced with threats of deportation if their indefinite leave to remain papers no longer exist.
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both apologised unreservedly and made clear their commitment to putting this right. There is no question but that the Windrush generation are British and deserve to have all the same rights as citizens. He raises an important point about EU citizens, and I regret anybody seeking to cause a lack of confidence and destabilise the feelings of EU citizens—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, Ministers from the Dispatch Box and I have all been absolutely clear: EU citizens who have come to the UK, made their lives here and contributed to the United Kingdom, are welcome here, and their rights will be protected. It is not the same situation at all.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
As the new chair of the all-party furniture industry group, may I make an early plea to my right hon. Friend for a debate in Government time to highlight the significant contribution that the furniture industry makes to the UK economy? May I urge her to exploit the unique skills of our British furniture manufacturers when we commence work on the restoration of this place?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new position. I am a big fan of that industry—my mother and stepfather had a furniture shop when I was growing up. The furniture industry is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises, and in 2017 alone it contributed nearly £3.9 billion to the UK economy, employing more than 90,000 workers. I assure my hon. Friend that the restoration and renewal programme will consider how the UK furniture sector can benefit from the restoration of our grade I listed palace.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I hope Members across the House share my anger with the multinational waste management company FCC Environment. It is refusing to grant all its workers the basic right of sick pay, despite one of those workers suffering from cancer, despite workers offering to give up their annual bonuses to help cover the cost, and despite the fact that all the management team receive sick pay. May we have a debate in Government time on whether any public contracts should be given to companies that do not offer something as basic as sick pay for all their workers?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a worrying situation. She will be aware that the Government’s Taylor review has raised all issues of the rights of workers and the way they are treated, and the Government will bring forward measures to ensure that any public procurement takes into account the importance of the rights of workers. I encourage the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise this specific case directly with Ministers.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It has been a strange old week for Parliament: money resolutions not provided and blocking a private Member’s Bill; a Government motion signed by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader not moved by the Government; and a Standing Order emergency application from the Government to destroy their own business. The real Whitehall farce of the week, however, was when the Leader of the Opposition had an emergency debate. Government Members were called back from everywhere to vote against the motion and the Leader of the Opposition got all his Members to vote against the motion. The Government voted for the Corbyn motion and Labour MPs voted against it. It was carried by a massive majority and not a single Labour MP supported it. Leader of the House, that is a nonsense! We have to change this and the simple way to do it is to have a business of the House committee. May we have a debate in Government time on this matter?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a real mish-mash of issues. On private Members’ Bills, he will be aware that a money resolution is being brought forward in due course as soon as we can do so. On Select Committee term limits, he, and I am sure you, Mr Speaker, would agree it is perfectly orderly for a Member whose name is on a motion to bring it forward. As another person whose name was on that motion, I am pleased that it has now been passed, giving Select Committee term limits of 10 years rather than eight years during this Parliament.
My hon. Friend also raises urgent debates. I have gone into some detail on the importance of the Government being held to account as early as possible on Monday. The practical way to do that is through an urgent debate, which you, Mr Speaker, were pleased to give. I do not think my hon. Friend has raised a succession of arguments for reform. To be very clear, a Committee of the whole House would not be able to deal with some of the many necessary changes to business.
Andrea Leadsom
The reality of trying to call a committee in short order to deal with very fast moving situations makes it entirely impractical. Having looked carefully at this issue, the Government have decided that it would not be a workable solution.
Mr Speaker
I should just say to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), and for the benefit of other Members, without in any way dissenting from anything that the Leader has just said, that it is perfectly open to the House to amend Standing Order No. 24, of which there is some uncertainty and often incomprehension. It could be amended to allow for the tabling of substantive motions in circumstances of emergency, which could also be amendable and on which the House could vote. If there are Members who are interested in that line of inquiry, they could usefully raise it with the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), but it is a matter for Members.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a lighter note, the sun is shining and it is obvious it is now spring. I always feel it is spring when the London marathon takes place. So many people run the marathon—not me, thank goodness—to raise money for charities, particularly heart and cancer charities. May we, from across the House, congratulate them all?
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), are calling for a debate on local democracy. Local democracy is fundamental to this country. We are all part of local democracy and products of it. May we have an urgent debate on local democracy? There is a big decline in social and community networks in our towns and cities, because, due to cuts to their budgets, local authorities are no longer able to support them.
Andrea Leadsom
First of all, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the 18 Members of Parliament and the thousands of others taking part in the London marathon, in particular Mo Farah, whom a number of us will be cheering on.
The hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on local democracy. A Westminster Hall debate or a Backbench Business debate can always be sought to share issues and ideas on local democracy. I draw his attention to departmental questions on 30 April, when he can raise it directly with Ministers.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I recently visited ILKE Homes, which is developing a factory near Knaresborough for the off-site pre-manufacture of homes. Other comparable initiatives are taking place across the country. This is an exciting development for the housing sector, as it will deliver houses quicker, with improved environmental benefits and at a cheaper cost. I was certainly impressed by what I saw at ILKE, so please could we have a debate about new methods of construction in the infrastructure and housing sectors, so that we can highlight the emerging benefits?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a really good point. The idea of manufactured housing can certainly contribute to the Government’s principal domestic priority, which is to ensure that everybody has the chance to have their own home. It is encouraging to see companies such as ILKE Homes using modern methods of construction. Throughout 2017, we saw continued growth in modern methods of construction across all sectors, and the Government’s home building fund is providing support for those methods. We should encourage all businesses looking at this to continue to do so.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Nearly 7,000 jobs and our steel industry rely on the contract for three new ships to support our aircraft carriers. The Government must get behind our shipbuilding and steel industry, so can we have a statement on defence procurement?
Andrea Leadsom
We are all very proud of our shipbuilding sector, which is in a good position and has had some huge successes with our new shipbuilding programme. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the Government’s commitment not just to provide a decent, home-grown future plan for new ships, but to seek to win orders from overseas as well. If he wants to seek a specific debate on shipbuilding, I recommend that he asks for an Adjournment debate so that he can raise the issue directly with Ministers.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the work of the Council of Europe, hopefully on an annual basis? As we leave the EU, it becomes the most important organisation in Europe of which we are still a member, and yesterday there was cross-party agreement to such a debate.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a really interesting suggestion, and I am certainly happy to take it away and look at it.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I echo the calls from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for us to have a debate on youth violence and the Government’s serious violence strategy. It might be helpful if I remind the Leader of the House of her comments on 29 March. On the strategy being published, she said:
“It will be very important, when the strategy comes forward, for the House to have a chance to debate it”.—[Official Report, 29 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 957.]
If she is worried about what the Home Secretary might think about this, when she was asked about this on 16 April, she said:
“I will take that very good question to the Leader of the House. I would relish such a debate.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 24.]
When are we going to have that debate on the serious violence strategy?
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, because she raises this issue frequently in the Chamber and I know that she is absolutely committed to doing everything that she can to eradicate this appalling increase in knife crime. I have already mentioned the steps that the Government are taking. I hear what she says about having a debate, and I will certainly take that away and see what can be done.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Agricultural machinery rings, such as Ringlink in my constituency—I have visited Ringlink, which has in excess of 2,700 members—play a vital and yet undervalued part in running a modern agricultural business by matching a shortage of machinery and labour on some farms with a surplus on other farms. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate in Government time on the vital part played in rural economies by businesses such as Ringlink and other machinery rings across the country?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. Collaboration between farmers can bring real economic benefits and help them to benefit from economies of scale, to share knowledge and share machinery, and of course, to jointly market their produce. Ringlink is a great example of a collaborative organisation that has managed to evolve in response to changing industry needs. The Government are keen to support that type of work in the agriculture sector, so in February this year we announced a £10 million collaboration fund to bring together those who are interested in greater co-operation.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Let me first associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about the anniversary of the foundation of Israel. That was a great achievement by a great Labour Government and a great Labour Foreign Secretary.
Three Members have asked questions about the wave of violent crime that is sweeping the whole of Britain to some extent, but especially London, and east London in particular. Given that it cannot be dissociated from the loss of police officers and police stations, we urgently need a debate about crime, policing levels and police station closures.
Andrea Leadsom
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the increase in crime levels, particularly in London. As I said earlier, on 8 April the Government announced plans for an offensive weapons Bill, which will make it illegal to carry corrosive substances in a public place. We will consult publicly on extending stop-and-search powers to enable the police to seize acids from people who are carrying them without good reason. The Bill will also make it illegal to possess certain offensive weapons, and we are taking a raft of other actions in the serious violence strategy. However, I hear from all Members that there is a strong desire for a debate on this subject, and I will certainly look into what can be done.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The disappointing profits results issued by Debenhams today follow hot on the heels of the difficulties that high street names such as Maplin, New Look and Toys R Us are experiencing. May we have a debate on what the Government can do to help high street retailers, especially those in small towns such as Shipley, Bingley and Baildon, which are having a very difficult time? Could we discuss in particular how we can help them to compete against online retailers by, for instance, doing something about business rates, so that the bricks-and-mortar retailers that are so needed and so welcome on our high streets can continue to thrive rather than struggling, as I am afraid they are at the moment?
Andrea Leadsom
l think we are all concerned about the health of the high street shopping centres in our constituencies, and my hon. Friend is also right to refer to online competition. Business rates may indeed be making the difference between bricks-and-mortar retailers and those that are doing better online. My hon. Friend will be aware of our measures to reform business rates and to try to create a more level playing field. Measures such as Small Business Saturday and the work that we all do as Members to promote our own small shopping areas are obviously important, but he may wish to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can talk directly to Ministers from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about what more we can do.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The day before a recess, I am reliably informed, is known as “take the trash out day” in Government circles. Before this year’s Easter recess, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport published its long-awaited review of the future of S4C. I am sure that the British Government would want to avoid the impression that they would refer to my country’s primary asset in such derogatory terms. May we have a debate in Government time, or at least an oral statement, on this important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
Let me first reassure the hon. Gentleman that the reason there is often a flurry of activity on the day before recesses is that, far from it being “take the trash out day”, the purpose is to ensure that the House is still sitting when important announcements are made so that they are not left until the House is in recess, which is precisely the opposite of what he has said. Let me also reassure him about the Welsh broadcasting channel: it is absolutely vital, and he may well want to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise the issue directly with Ministers.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Yesterday morning the Prime Minister welcomed Narendra Modi to No. 10 Downing Street, and yesterday evening I joined right hon. and hon. Members to attend events in Central Hall, where Modiji subjected himself to two and a half hours of detailed questioning.
At the same time, a quite disgraceful event was taking place in Parliament Square, where the Indian national flag, which had been raised to celebrate the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, was burned. Meanwhile, some disgraceful billboards were going around London comparing our good friend Narendra Modi to Hitler. I am all for free speech, but that seems to transcend free speech. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary about what will be done to prevent such actions from taking place in the future?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has made a shocking announcement, and if he wants to write to me giving details of what he saw or heard, I shall be happy to take it up with the Home Secretary on his behalf.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The data protection legislation currently going through the House is a welcome update to our legislative framework, but may we have an urgent statement from the relevant Minister on the unintended consequences that this legislation might have for MPs being able to communicate with their constituents?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that a number of Members have raised this issue with me in recent days. Both the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Information Commissioner’s Office are putting out further advice for MPs. My own parliamentary staff undertook the first round of training, and found it much too generic: there was not enough detail about the consequences for pre-existing data we hold on constituents who have contacted us before, and so on. So there is now a huge effort under way to ensure that MPs get the advice they need so that they can be absolutely clear about the impact this has on their relationship with their constituents. To be clear, it is vital that our relationship with—our ability to communicate with, about and on behalf of—our constituents is not impaired in any way.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
In the first two months of this year, there were 413 domestic burglaries in the London borough of Bromley, some 32% up, and 38 of them were in the Chislehurst ward alone. They are largely carried out by organised gangs of criminals, almost invariably armed and willing to threaten, and sometimes use, violence. It is not unique to Bromley, either, or to other parts of London. Many of my constituents regard this as a crime of violence and think that, frankly, all domestic burglaries should be treated as crimes of violence because of the invasion of someone’s home, family and privacy. May we have a debate in Government time on having a joined-up strategy for tackling this through both police priorities and the sentencing framework?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s experiences in his constituency, and of course any form of burglary, particularly when violence is threatened, is very frightening and harrowing for the victims. I encourage him to seek either a Backbench Business Committee debate or an Adjournment debate so that he can raise his particular concerns directly with Ministers.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the light of the decision of the Scottish Government, followed by the Welsh Government, to put the healthcare and dignity of women first by allowing abortion tablets to be taken at home, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for England Health explaining why English women still have to attend an abortion clinic to get those medically prescribed tablets, and why we are still making the harrowing stories we hear of women who have miscarried on the way home from those clinics in public toilets or on public transport happen in England?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, and I encourage her to raise it at Health questions, but if she would prefer to write to me, I can take it up with the Department on her behalf.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The issue of potholes is understandably troubling my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire, and I am delighted that Northamptonshire is to get an extra £1.6 million of Government funding to help with repairs, but Ministers must keep the resources under constant review, so may we have a statement on that next week?
Andrea Leadsom
I confess to having a great interest in my hon. Friend’s pothole problem since his constituency is just up the road from mine, and very often the journey there goes through both of our constituencies. Potholes are a disastrous problem, and it is at this time of year, after the long winter and when the roads are in a particularly bad state, that the potholes start getting repaired. Certainly in my area I am seeing some improvements, and I hope all hon. Members are in theirs, too. My hon. Friend raises an important point that affects all of us, and it is a perfect example of something the Backbench Business Committee might look at.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I recently had lunch at the Old Bailey with judges, and they told me that virtually every other trial they are handling at present involves knife crime, gang crime and teenagers. I then sat in and witnessed the trial of four teenagers who were convicted of murdering another teenager. That is such a tragic waste of life, so I just want to add my voice to those of the other MPs who have spoken about this matter. The House really does need to debate it, and I hope the Leader of the House will give it parliamentary time.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think she is about the sixth hon. Member to raise this issue, and I will certainly go away and look at it carefully.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
There is traffic chaos in north-east Lincolnshire due to the number of temporary traffic lights. Some have been installed for essential roadworks, but the council is failing to co-ordinate these operations. May we have a debate on how local authorities deal with these situations? Motorists are frustrated, traders are becoming increasingly angry and we need action.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a great spokesman for his constituency, and I can well imagine the frustration caused by poorly co-ordinated roadworks and permanently “temporary” traffic lights, which are very frustrating for motorists. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate or to write to Ministers on the specifics in his constituency.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May we have a debate to mark the 25th anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence in Eltham? It was a seminal moment for race relations in our country, and it should be recognised in some way by the House. Such a debate would give us an opportunity to distance ourselves from the remarks made by Mr Mellish, the former detective, on last night’s documentary, in which he accused Stephen Lawrence’s mother of having a gimmick in not smiling. She was a bereaved mother who had lost her son in the most tragic circumstances, and she was let down by the Metropolitan police, which was found to be institutionally racist. Mr Mellish was a fine example of that last night, and we should be given the opportunity to distance ourselves from individuals such as him.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says. We all have our own recollection of the appalling night on which Stephen Lawrence was murdered, of the bravery of both his parents in their own ways in the subsequent years, and of the lessons learned by the police forces. Our current Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, has shown her commitment to stamping out any form of racism, which is vital for all of us, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that Stephen Lawrence’s appalling death must never be forgotten.
Mr Speaker
Pursuant to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry and to what the Leader of the House has said, I believe I am right in saying that there is to be a commemorative service at St Martin-in-the-Fields next Monday to mark the 25th anniversary of that appalling murder. I think I am also right in saying that our admirable Chaplain, Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, will be preaching at the service. I hope colleagues will agree that that is singularly appropriate.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, at the last business questions, you stated that you expected the Government to make an announcement in the House of Commons about the awarding of the mechanised infantry vehicle contract. In fact, that announcement was made during the recess, on Easter Saturday—a time, I would suggest, deliberately designed to minimise publicity and avoid scrutiny. May we have a debate in Government time in this House as soon as possible on that important £2 billion contract?
Andrea Leadsom
First, I reiterate my commitment to ensuring that Parliament is the place where as many announcements as possible are made. I also draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that we will have Defence questions on Monday, so he will have an opportunity to raise his concern directly at that point.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
The Leader of the House will recall that I recently raised in business questions the problem of addiction, including compulsive gambling. One of the most dangerously addictive forms of gambling is online gambling, and she might have seen that one of the German Länder has recently legislated to prevent online gambling in that area. Will she urge her Government colleagues to look at that German initiative in addressing the scourge of gambling addiction?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this point. Addictive online gambling is absolutely destroying lives, and the loss of income and vital family money is appalling. If he would like to write to me separately, I can take the matter up with Ministers on his behalf.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
May we have a debate on community sport and active lifestyles, such as those promoted by local bowling clubs? I had the pleasure of attending Kelvindale bowling club in my constituency for the opening of the season, and I am proudly wearing its tie today. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing all the best to that club, to clubs across the country, and indeed to the Scotland team, all of whom came home from the Commonwealth games with one kind of medal or another?
Andrea Leadsom
I am always delighted to congratulate those involved in all sporting efforts, including the bowling team that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and, of course, I congratulate Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom on an excellent Commonwealth games.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Every weekend, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children make their weekly pilgrimage to watch their football team. In the top two tiers of English football, they can only do so sitting down. This is unsafe, as it is not universally observed, and it is bad for the atmosphere. It is time to permit safe standing, as they do in Scotland and other parts of Europe. May we have a debate on this matter in Government time?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are arguments for and against standing and sitting in football stadiums and we have our own horrendous examples of unfortunate and appalling circumstances involving standing. I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not an easy issue to decide one way or the other. I encourage him to take the matter up directly with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and see what progress it is making.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On the subject of the London marathon, not only is my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) running but so is my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman). This will make them the first husband and wife team from the House of Commons to run the London marathon—
Kevin Brennan
She may indeed.
I confess that I do not read the impact assessment for every Bill placed before the House, and the Leader of the House has mentioned a large number of Bills, but I was surprised to read in the Daily Mail this morning a quote from the Home Office on the Bill that became the Immigration Act 2014 that said that Ministers would not have been required to sign off the impact assessment. Is it the case that under this Government Ministers will introduce Bills into the business of the House of Commons without knowing what their impact is?
Andrea Leadsom
I did not read the article in the Daily Mail that the hon. Gentleman mentions. My understanding, having been a Minister for some four years, is that Ministers sign off on impact assessments, but whether there are some that they do not sign off I am genuinely not aware, so I will write to him.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
May we have an urgent statement from the Government urging people to get behind London marathon runners this weekend, of which I am one? Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the work of Glasgow EastEnd Community Carers and encourage generous Glaswegians to get right behind me and donate—and will she possibly donate herself?
Andrea Leadsom
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is now known as Legs Linden—is that it? I encourage him to go for it; we are proud of him and all colleagues taking part in the London marathon, particularly for such a great cause. I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s charity in all it does to try to help people.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
On Monday, I had great pleasure in attending Channel 4’s announcement of the biggest restructuring of the channel in its 35-year history, with the “4 all the UK” programme to disperse its headquarters out of London to different cities around the UK. I have every confidence that my city of Glasgow, with its excellent strengths in broadcast media, production and education in media, will have a good strong chance of securing one of those headquarter facilities. Will the Leader of the House consider calling a debate so that MPs from across the UK can advocate for their constituencies to be the home of the Channel 4 headquarters?
Andrea Leadsom
I am certainly glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that early pitch for Glasgow. I am sure that plenty of people will have heard it and I am sure that all hon. Members will find their own way of putting their pitch forward so that their cities can take part in Channel 4’s dispersion arrangements.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I associate myself with the question asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about the loss of the Backbench Business Committee-sponsored debate on the banks on Tuesday, for very important reasons. Many thousands of our constituents are waiting for the debate. They are waiting to hear answers to questions that they have raised over many years. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House indicated if the Government might be able to facilitate three hours, ideally on a Tuesday, for the debate to take place.
Andrea Leadsom
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), I apologise for the circumstances that led to the Backbench Business Committee deciding not to hold that debate and further apologise for the fact that that was the second time it happened. I absolutely recognise the importance of the debate. We need to have it and, as I said to my hon. Friend, I will take it away and see whether we can offer Government time while appreciating, as I know hon. Members do, that there is a premium on legislative priorities.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Following a freedom of information request from the GMB union, shipbuilders in Scotland have learned that the Government are putting out the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to international tender. That is despite the fact that the Government do not have to do so, despite the fact that they could secure almost 7,000 jobs here and despite the fact they could generate millions of pounds for the Exchequer. May we have an urgent statement, not leaving it to Defence questions on Monday, so that the Defence Secretary can give a proper explanation of himself?
Andrea Leadsom
I am not aware of that freedom of information request, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise it at Defence questions—it is only on Monday, so it is not too long to wait—so he can raise it directly with the Secretary of State.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the “really hostile environment” the Prime Minister has created for migrants to the UK? Almost half of my constituents were born outside the UK. Many face harassment by the Home Office, and 40% of my EU citizens report negative experiences following the Brexit vote. It is not only the Windrush generation but more recent migrants who are suffering victimisation and discrimination by this Government.
Andrea Leadsom
This country is incredibly welcoming to immigrants. We have one of the broadest ranges of people coming to this country from across the world to make their life here. This country is, in fact, very welcoming to immigrants. The Prime Minister herself has carried out the first ever race disparity audit to look at the areas where integration has been more difficult and to take action in those areas. I simply do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the Government’s policy.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Claims helplines are supposed to be free phone numbers. In answer to a written parliamentary question, the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that the employment and support allowance helpline became a free phone number on 7 December, but the most prominent number available online is an 0843 number, which is chargeable. Last month one of my constituents was charged £72 over the month for phone calls made to that number. Will the Leader of the House make a statement outlining what the Government will do to make sure that only free phone numbers are used and that information on those numbers is widely available online? Does she agree that my constituent should get a refund from the DWP?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. If he writes to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I am sure she will respond. If he wants to do that through me, I am happy to take it up with my right hon. Friend on his behalf.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My constituents, Mr and Mrs Dodd, face losing their home next month as a result of a personal guarantee they signed with Goldcrest Distribution Ltd. The case highlights the lack of safeguards for individuals who sign such agreements and the unreasonable way that finance companies pursue such debts. An offer to repay nearly double the loan amount was rejected, and the debt continues to increase at a rate of over £300 a day, thanks to interest rates at which even Wonga would blush. Please can we have a debate on more protection for individuals in these circumstances?
Andrea Leadsom
That is a particularly awful story. Having been City Minister some time ago, I have heard similar stories of the appalling way that some individuals are treated by finance companies. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue, and I encourage him to write to the Financial Conduct Authority to see whether it can take action on behalf of his constituents.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Despite this horrendous heatwave, I am still looking forward to joining 17 colleagues on both sides of the House in trying to complete the marathon on Sunday. I will be raising money for Spina Bifida Hydrocephalus Scotland. On that note, may we have a debate in Government time on why they continue to resist calls from the Food Standards Agency, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and others for the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid? It has been shown in other countries that fortification can significantly reduce the number of pregnancies affected by neural tube defects, including spina bifida.
Andrea Leadsom
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman. An impressive set of colleagues are taking part in the marathon. Let us hope it is just cool enough for them all to finish.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising money for Spina Bifida Hydrocephalus Scotland, which is a vital charity. He has campaigned on this subject for some time, and I encourage him to continue raising this issue with Ministers.
Private Rented Sector
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me time, on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, to speak to the House today about our fourth report of this Session, which is on the private rented sector. The report concentrated on: the quality of accommodation; the balance of power between tenants and landlords; the legislative framework; and enforcement
This Committee last considered the private rented sector in a report in 2013, following which the Government carried forward many of our suggestions, including a reformed approach to selective licensing, the mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation and a new regulatory model for letting agents. We hope the Government will take forward many of our recommendations this time, too.
The private rented sector has doubled in size in the past 15 years. There are now 4.7 million households in the sector, including 1.8 million families with children, which represents 20% of all households. Statistics show that most housing in the sector is adequate, although Shelter told us that 53% of tenants had experienced at least one problem with conditions or repair in the past year. Although the overall proportion of inadequate properties in the sector has fallen, the absolute number has increased, and a significant minority of private rented accommodation continues to be shockingly inadequate. The English housing survey shows that approximately 800,000 private rented homes in England have at least one category 1 hazard, such as excess cold, mould or exposed wiring. In our online forum, we heard directly from tenants about the poor conditions they had suffered. One submission said:
“We live in a house full of mould and damp with four young children…We have …faulty electrics and water comes through the living room window when it rains…the whole family keeps getting ill from it.”
We wanted to know about the power relationship between landlords and tenants: are tenants, especially those at the lower end of the market, able to complain and get their problems attended to? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Citizens Advice told us that 44% of tenants said that a fear of eviction would stop them from negotiating with their landlord over disrepair. Shelter and Citizens Advice told us that they often reminded tenants about the risks of making complaints. We heard that 14% of tenants felt that they had been penalised for complaining, and more than 200,000 reported having been abused, threatened or harassed by a landlord. We found that there is a clear power imbalance, and we called on the Government to consider extending protections which they rightly introduced in the Deregulation Act 2015. We also agree with the Government that a specialist housing court would provide a more accessible route to redress for tenants and urge them to issue more detailed proposals as soon as possible.
We looked at the overall legislative framework. The Residential Landlords Association told us there were 140 Acts of Parliament and more than 400 regulations affecting landlords in the sector. Our 2013 report called for that to be consolidated and made simpler. Since then, we have had the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Deregulation Act 2015 and many others, so the situation is even more complicated. Therefore, we recommend again that the Law Commission undertakes a review of the legislation and provides guidance as to whether a new approach would bring more clarity for tenants, landlords and local authorities.
We focused on the housing health and safety rating system, and heard that there is a lack of understanding about how it works among landlords and tenants, and inconsistent application by local authorities. We called on the Government to immediately update the guidance on the rating system and eventually to introduce a more straightforward set of quality standards that everyone can understand.
We heard near unanimous support for the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). We, too, offer our support for the Bill, but we want to make sure vulnerable tenants at the lower end of the market are able to make use of these powers. We have therefore called for free and easily accessible technical and legal advice to support tenants. As it is likely tenants will seek this advice from local authorities, it is vital that they are suitably resourced to provide this additional service.
Most local authorities told us they were satisfied generally with the powers they have. However, powers can be meaningless if they are not actually used, and a freedom of information request showed that six out of 10 councils had not prosecuted a single landlord in 2016. One council, Newham, was responsible for 50% of all prosecutions across the country—why is that? Clearly, the level of protection being offered to vulnerable tenants in many councils is not adequate. The reasons we heard were: the legislation is over-complicated, as I have mentioned; local authorities have insufficient resources; and some local authorities simply lack the political will.
On resources, the Local Government Association has identified a funding gap of £5.8 billion by 2019-20. The Chartered Institute of Housing showed that local authority spending on enforcement has reduced by a fifth over a six-year period. The Government have rightly introduced civil penalties of up to £30,000 and allowed local authorities to keep that money, and they brought in rent repayment orders—both were recommendations in the Committee’s previous report. Local authorities need further funding, though, and we hope the Government will work with them to try to achieve that.
Concerns were expressed that local authorities could not always cover the full cost of prosecutions, which might deter them from prosecuting some cases. The Minister said that local authorities’ duty was to prosecute regardless, but, being cash-strapped, they will often take the cost into account when they make decisions. We believe that courts should require offenders to pay costs that reflect the actual costs to local authorities of enforcement actions.
As part of our inquiry, we went to Newham to look at the enforcement activity there. I saw a garden shed configured to accommodate not one, but two households. We heard of about 25 people being accommodated in a small three-bedroom house. People were living in a walk-in freezer. A family was living in a chipboard construction in a garden, with a fridge and a washing machine powered by a wire from the kitchen. These are shocking conditions, and the fines and civil penalties should be increased.
However, the very worst landlords, whose business model relies on the exploitation of vulnerable tenants, can make hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. To them, a civil penalty of £30,000, however large an amount that is, is merely a business expense. To deal with the worst of the criminal landlords, we call for local authorities to have the power to take action to secure the confiscation of properties from landlords who commit the very worst offences, and to break their business model, which relies on the exploitation of vulnerable tenants.
Aside from the adequacy of resources or the severity of penalties, variations in enforcement between councils indicate that some local authorities have placed a higher priority on standards than others. We have called for authorities to publish their enforcement strategies and for a national benchmarking scheme, so that residents can compare enforcement between authorities. Ultimately, we believe that the disparity can be addressed only through political leadership.
In recognition of the particular interests of some Members, we supported the findings of the all-party group on carbon monoxide, which has called for landlords to install carbon monoxide alarms in the rooms of private rented properties that contain any fuel-burning appliance. We also supported the call for the Government to implement mandatory five-yearly checks on electrical installations in private rented property—an issue on which the Government have been consulting.
Finally, we looked into selective landlord licensing schemes. Since April 2015, local authorities have had to seek approval from the Government for selective schemes that would cover more than 20% of their area or more than 20% of privately rented homes in it. We heard that decision making was too slow, lacked transparency and was over-bureaucratic. Even local authorities that had decided against implementing a scheme felt that the decision should rest at local level.
In our view, decisions to implement such schemes should be made locally, where there is greater understanding of local needs and politicians are directly accountable to their electorates. We recommend that the Government remove the 20% cap; however, the Secretary of State should retain a power to require local authorities to reconsider a decision to implement a scheme that does not meet the strict criteria already set out by the Government.
As the private rented sector continues to expand and people remain in the sector for far longer, the Government need to address the clear power imbalance between tenants and landlords, and to ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to enforce the even stronger laws that we are recommending, to protect the most vulnerable tenants living in the worst conditions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is good to see my friend the Chair of the Select Committee back in his place after his medical treatment. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I agree absolutely with every point made in the report. In respect of retaliatory evictions, does he agree that one issue that must be resolved is assured shorthold tenancies of six months, which are the norm for the private sector? If we extended those to three-year tenancies, that would strike a better balance between tenants and landlords.
Mr Betts
I absolutely agree. In our previous report—my friend, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was also a member of the Committee at the time—we called for longer-term tenancies and greater certainty and security. We recognise what the Government have done under the Deregulation Act 2015 in terms of protection against retaliatory evictions, but the problem in the current market is that if a tenant does not formally complain in writing to the local authority, and the local authority then does not get enforcement action, there is actually no protection. We also recognise that the new legislation coming in, such as the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), could leave the tenant open to retaliatory eviction, and in that legislation there is no protection from it. That is why we say that we should look again at that particular issue.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is very good to see my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, back in his place. I am a member of the Committee and it was a pleasure to work with other members of the Committee on this report, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
A family with very small children living in poor-quality rented accommodation in my constituency were recently evicted after they complained that the ceiling in the bathroom had collapsed over the bath shortly after they had finished bathing their children. I have no doubt that the next tenant is now living in that property, and that it is the taxpayer who is lining that landlord’s pockets by paying the rent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate for this report to make the recommendation that, in such despicable circumstances, the state should have the power to remove such properties from those landlords so that they can be returned to good use for families who need high-quality accommodation? Will he join me in calling on the Minister to progress that recommendation?
Mr Betts
I thank my hon. Friend for her best wishes. May I also thank her and the hon. Member for Harrow East for the work that they did on the Select Committee while I was off in March?
Absolutely. We heard that many landlords do an excellent job. There are some who do not do it quite as well as others, and there are some who are basically criminals—the word “rogue” is used, but they are basically criminals. They are exploiting both the tenant and the taxpayer. In those extreme circumstances, the ultimate power of not merely banning them from operating as a landlord, but taking that property off them, is something we hope the Government will seriously consider.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee back to his place.
I recused myself from the Select Committee inquiry because of my own Member’s interests, to which, of course, the House can refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) references longer tenancies, but does the Chair of the Select Committee accept that those should be introduced on a voluntary basis for fear otherwise of driving landlords out of the sector, thereby potentially reducing supply to this very, very important sector?
Mr Betts
We did not particularly consider that in this report. In our previous report, we said that Shelter had produced a good model, and that we encouraged the sector to look at it. We must make landlords more aware of what is on offer. Sometimes, there is a feeling that some letting agents encourage the delivery of shorter-term tenancies because—guess what?—they make money every time the tenancy is renewed. The Government are dealing with that element in terms of tenants paying those fees, but landlords should get a bit wise to this, because I think many would actually favour longer tenancies. Let us get the information out there and encourage it.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Last night, I attended a housing assembly at a West London Citizens meeting. Some 300 people from churches, schools and community organisations were present. One of the demands on our council candidates was for there to be greater landlord licensing and a charter of tenants’ rights. What did the Committee’s report say on that? From my recollection, when these subjects came up in the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill, some Government Members said that they would lead to too much red tape; I think many of them derive income from that source. What does my hon. Friend have to say on that?
Mr Betts
There are two issues there. We have talked about the power imbalance, and action can be taken particularly on retaliatory eviction and retaliatory rent increases to try to rebalance the power. We have also asked the Government to use social media to make more information available to tenants, rather than just using the written form. On licensing, what we are saying is that, essentially, this should be a local decision within the current criteria. I hear landlords say, “It costs us,” but what I say is that the landlords’ concern over selective licensing is not because of the fee that they pay, but because Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs might suddenly realise that they are raking in an income and they might suddenly have to start paying tax on it. That is something we should welcome in terms of public resources—getting in more tax as a result of these schemes.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is good to see my hon. Friend back in his place. He rightly highlighted the contribution that the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), can make to tackling the really appalling conditions in the private sector. The Government are supporting the Bill—at the third time of asking—but it is still not being allowed into Committee. Will he use his and his Committee’s considerable weight to ensure that the Bill does indeed pass, because we absolutely need its powers?
Mr Betts
I will certainly do everything I can. That was the view of the Committee, and of the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, which I was here for. The Bill has unanimous support, so I hope there will be no obstacles to it. We did identify two issues, however, around making the Bill work. One was to ensure protection from retaliatory eviction when tenants complain—we thought that important—and the second was access to proper legal and technical advice, which many tenants will need to take on their landlord. We also said that a reformed housing court would make such legal approaches by tenants or anyone else much easier to deal with, and asked the Government to give urgent consideration to that as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Excellent. It is good to welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) back to his place.
Backbench Business
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Surgical Mesh
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
We now come to the Backbench debate on surgical mesh, in which Emma Hardy is to move the motion. As is the custom, she has around 15 minutes. I am sure there could be a little leeway, but Members should be aware we have an important debate to follow.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House commends the recent announcement of a retrospective audit into surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence; notes that vaginal mesh has been banned in other jurisdictions such as New Zealand; further notes that NICE guidance recommends against the use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and that no NICE recommendations have been made for stress urinary incontinence; notes that Sheffield University recently announced the development of a new mesh material; and calls on the Government to suspend prolapse and incontinence mesh operations while the audit is being carried out, to bring forward the NICE guidelines for mesh in stress related urinary incontinence from 2019 to 2018, and to commit to a full public inquiry into mesh if the audit suggests that this is the best course of action.
I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this debate to take place and to the fantastic work done by the all-party parliamentary group on surgical mesh implants, of which I am a vice chair, and which is led by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). I also thank the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for their support in bringing forward this debate, as well as the amazing Kath Sansom and the campaign group Sling the Mesh—many of the women up in the Gallery have done so much to bring this to public attention. It is for the members of this group and everybody else affected by this scandal that I rise to speak today.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend as alarmed as I am—she clearly is—that today and tomorrow women will be having operations that might well cause them complications in the future? Does she agree that these operations should be stopped until we find out the truth?
Emma Hardy
I absolutely agree. One of the main points I wish to make is the urgent need to suspend the use of mesh.
The issue of surgical mesh was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine called Angie, an incredibly brave woman who used to be very fit and healthy, but who, after having incontinence following the birth of her twins and a hysterectomy, was advised to have this mesh operation. She is now unable to work, in constant pain and suffering, cannot take part in sports and has problems sleeping. I remember listening to what she said to me and feeling horrified that this had happened to her. As I have learned, she is most definitely not alone. One story that moved me came in by email this week. The lady who emailed wrote:
“I started noticing that something wasn’t right with me the second day after I was discharged after the operation. It started with my legs—they were extremely stiff and cold, especially my feet, I couldn’t warm them in any way. I rang the hospital, but it didn’t ring an alarm bell to them. Then after a few days, I started having a very bad stomach ache, nausea, headache, chest pain, something happened to my vision, out of the blue, I became very tired and weak, slightly dizzy. I started noticing that I couldn’t focus and think clearly, my scars didn’t heal well and suddenly after a month my biggest scar started producing very smelly discharge.
I requested an appointment with a GP. I was already complaining that something wasn’t right with me. Everything started after the operation…When my health and all symptoms got worse 12 weeks since the operation, I was told that my fatigue is because I have a 2 year old...Now, it’s been 14 months since my operation—I am extremely dizzy and have very poor balance. I can’t feel the ground with my legs. I’m extremely nauseous, I have bad stomach ache, migraines, breathing problems and chest pain. I’m numb. I have vision fog and very painful, sore eyes. My body can’t recognize the temperature. Either I’m too cold or I’m about to faint from the heat. I started having very bad side effects to antibiotics, supplements or even herbal teas. Before the operation, I had no side effects at all. In 8 months, I lost 12% of my total weight and now I’m 8 and a half stone and still losing weight. This mesh wipes my iron out from the system. My fertility is gone.”
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case. Does she agree that one of the most worrying things, and part of the seriousness, is that the people facing decades of pain, suffering and loss of amenity are relatively young?
Emma Hardy
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is completely right, because mesh was given to lots of young women following childbirth—many women were still in their 30s—and it has left them feeling disabled.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am delighted the hon. Lady has this debate. Does she agree that, as well as young women, lots of males are caught in this sorry and ghastly trap? I have personally heard some terrible tales from my constituency, although I will not go into them just now.
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. After we have moved on from looking at vaginal mesh, we need to look at rectopexy mesh and mesh that has been used in men as well. I completely agree.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work. The NHS audit recently looked at the women who had suffered as a result. Does she agree that it would have been helpful to look at the number of men who have been affected, so that we get a picture of the true severity?
Emma Hardy
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The all-party group should push for that after we have looked at the issue.
For those who are more statistically minded, NHS Digital undertook the recent audit, which was published on Tuesday. The facts are these: more than 100,000 women had vaginal mesh inserted between 2008 and 2017 to treat stress urinary incontinence, which is common after childbirth.
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend mentioned women feeling that they were alone, which is one of the main problems. I have spoken to a lot of people who were told that there was not a problem and that they were perhaps the only ones experiencing a problem. People were on a host of painkillers and were not told that others had experienced the same and that it was a much wider problem.
Emma Hardy
Part of the scandal is how many women were treated when they went back to their doctors. The fantastic work of groups such as Sling the Mesh has brought so many women together, and shown them that they are not alone and that many others have suffered.
The number of subsequent gynaecology out-patient appointments per 100 people having the mesh insertion procedure is 79. There are 43 out-patient appointments per 100 for rehabilitation, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The figures show that the number of women having the procedure has fallen during the last nine years by 48%, which says an awful lot about what doctors think.
These women were injured. These women were ignored. These women are the victims of a scandal.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful and moving speech. May I include testimony from my constituent, Adele Yemm, from Chiswick? There was a catalogue of errors with her case. She had only mild incontinence, and physiotherapy would have sorted it out. There were issues about consent—she was denied that. She had a full implant fitted. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the biggest medical scandal since thalidomide?
Emma Hardy
I completely agree that this is an absolute scandal.
During the debate in October, I asked the Government to do four things: to commit to a full, retrospective and mandatory audit of all interventions and, if the data proves it necessary, a full public inquiry; to suspend prolapse and incontinence mesh operations while the audit is carried out; to bring forward the NICE guidelines for mesh in relation to stress-related urinary incontinence from 2019 to 2018; and to commit to raising awareness with doctors and patients alike.
In December, NICE issued new guidance, ruling that the evidence for the long-term effectiveness of the treatment for pelvic organ prolapse is
“inadequate in quality and quantity”.
The NHS is not compelled to act on these guidelines, but that would amount to a de facto ban.
In January, the Government caved in to demands for a national audit of surgical mesh, which reported on Tuesday. The audit is not perfect. For example, it looks only at NHS hospital figures and misses off private patients and out-patients; does not include men; does not include ventral rectopexy mesh sufferers; does not cover visits to GPs; and does not indicate how many times someone has to visit their GP before being referred for out-patient treatment. However, it seems broadly to agree with what we have been saying all along: that the Government’s claim that only 1% to 3% of women suffered serious complications is just not accurate.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on this important debate. She is right to call this a scandal. A constituent of mine now has a colostomy bag and severe internal pain and probably cannot give birth safely in future. She is 24. She makes the point that ventral rectopexy mesh procedures are not included in the audit, apparently because there is no code for surgeons to enter. May I join the hon. Lady in pressing the Minister to go back and include that in the audit so that my constituent’s suffering can be recorded?
Emma Hardy
I absolutely agree, and I hope that will be included in future.
Analysis conducted by Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford and clinical adviser to the APPG on surgical mesh implants, reveals that the 100,516 women who have undergone mesh surgery in England since 2008 have required follow-up treatment in 993,035 out-patient appointments. He has calculated the total cost to the NHS for all incontinence and out-patient appointments to be £245 million. His analysis of the trend in out-patient appointments also shows that more are required by women as each year passes after their surgery, which is completely the opposite of what you would expect after a successful surgery.
The data shows that the number of operations using mesh has halved over the last decade, which shows that doctors and patients are voting with their feet and telling the world that they do not want to use mesh.
Emma Hardy
I will have to continue.
In February came the welcome announcement of the Cumberlege review of how the NHS addresses concerns about vaginal mesh devices and how patients have been treated when raising those concerns. However, I remain deeply concerned that mesh has not yet been completely suspended and that it remains possible for doctors to use it, especially in the case of stress urinary incontinence. There is also still no universally available physiotherapy as standard for all new mothers, as there is in France, to stop these problems before they even arise.
I still believe that it is an absolute scandal that these devices were aggressively marketed to doctors and then used in patients for whom they were unsuited. We need to ensure that lessons are learned and that more steps are taken to make the medical products industry more transparent. Campaigners have even called for legislation, such as they have in America, to require doctors to declare any grants, inducements or scholarships that they receive from the industry.
Some patients think they are having the mesh completely removed, only to find out later that it has been only partially removed. They feel that they are suddenly better and that they are recovering only to go through the horror of having the symptoms come back later. It is important that, where possible, mesh should be removed in full.
Despite the fact that 100 different types of mesh are available in the UK and that we do not know whether just one type is causing the problem or 100 types; despite the fact that Carl Heneghan has raised concerns about the small amount of evidence that mesh manufacturers are required to provide before their products are approved; and despite the fact that Dr Wael Agur from the University of Glasgow, a one-time advocate of mesh surgery, is now arguing that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has only a fraction of the knowledge of the adverse effects associated with mesh, NICE is still not going to bring its guidelines for stress urinary incontinence forward from 2019 to 2018, and the Government seem more focused on process than on the actual product.
Suzy Elneil, consultant urologist at University College London and one of the few qualified surgeons who is able to remove mesh, tells me that she sees 15 women a week who are suffering after mesh surgery. Even if NICE releases its guidance on 1 January 2019, Suzy alone will see another 525 patients before that date— 525 more patients living in unbearable pain. I am sorry, but that is 525 people too many. The Government must press NICE to bring forward the guidelines and pay attention to the product as well as the process.
Emma Hardy
I am sorry, but I have to continue.
It seems that our campaign must continue. We must ask again for renewed commitments from the Government to address these problems. Again, I ask the Government to commit to three things. First, we need a full and unequivocal suspension of mesh implant operations. Secondly, I ask them to bring forward the NICE guidelines for stress-related urinary incontinence from 2019 to 2018. Thirdly—this is a new one—will they please offer pelvic floor physiotherapy to all new mums as standard on the NHS, as happens in France, to help to restore the core after birth?
I end my speech with exactly the same words I used to conclude my remarks in Westminster Hall. Mesh implants have affected thousands of people all over the country. For some, the consequences of their operation will be life-changing and devastating. A Government commitment to taking these actions will not undo the suffering and pain that these women have endured, but would go a long way to making sure that nothing like this happens again.
This is the second time that I have spoken these words. Let us hope that justice is done before I have to speak them a third time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The time limit for speeches is eight minutes.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I pay tribute to the many women, including those in my constituency, who have come forward to discuss deeply personal and painful accounts of serious complications following mesh surgery, sometimes with life-changing and lifelong consequences for them and their families. I also thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) who, as always, has set out the background to the issue so eloquently. She has been such a campaigner on behalf of victims, and I really thank her for what she is doing. I will not repeat much of the background that she set out, but I will highlight a few points to which I hope the Minister will respond in her closing remarks.
As we have heard, NHS Digital has published a review of patients who have undergone urogynaecological procedures for prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, including those where mesh, tape or equivalents were used. However, as the hon. Lady pointed out, the review does not cover all procedures, nor does it include the men who have been affected. We know that 100,516 women underwent these procedures between 2008 and 2016, of which 27,016 cases involved mesh for prolapse. Although the numbers are falling, I am afraid that this is just a snapshot.
Mr Seely
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on calling this important debate. Are the figures accurate? I have been told that some of the figures do not include people who are treated abroad and come here having developed complications, or people who have been to private clinics. The numbers that we have may therefore not be accurate, perhaps underestimating the true total.
Dr Wollaston
I was about to come to that very point. Crucially, many of the women I have met have been treated in the private sector. In this House, we should be concerned about all our constituents, not only those who are treated in the NHS. Of course, it is the NHS that often then bears the burden of managing complications, but we must have a much more accurate picture.
I support the call from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and from the British Society of Urogynaecology for mandatory prospective data collection, using the BSU’s database. That is a well-established method of collecting outcome data. Retrospective snapshots are no substitute for collecting data as we go forward or, most importantly, for being able to track it in the long term. Although the majority of complications that happen after 30 days happen in the first year, many of the women I have met developed complications far later than that. I particularly want to emphasise to the Minister how important it is that we have access to shared databases not just here in the UK, but across Europe. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will be seeking for us to remain part of the European Database on Medical Devices—EUDAMED—so that we not only get an accurate picture of what is happening here in the UK, where our population is smaller, but can compare our data with the whole European Union?
That brings me to the wider point about Brexit that is highlighted in the report of the Select Committee on Health on the implications of Brexit for medicines, devices and substances of human origin: the issue of access to clinical trials. It is encouraging that the Government have stated that they wish to remain a part of the European Medicines Agency or to have associate membership, but there are all sorts of aspects to forward clinical research on which it is essential that the Government campaign. They must campaign not just to maintain regulatory alignment and harmonisation, but to ensure that we can remain part of all research mechanisms and mechanisms for ensuring that we have the earliest possible awareness of any complications—not just from drugs but, as this situation has shown, from medical devices. I hope that the Minister will further outline the Government’s intention in that regard.
Sir Oliver Heald
My hon. Friend will remember that I spoke about my constituents in Letchworth during the debate in Westminster Hall. I am delighted that the audit has been done, but another constituent from Letchworth has been in touch with me since then. She has had ventral mesh rectopexy surgery and posterior mesh rectopexy surgery, which I understand are subsets of the mesh cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to look at a smaller group of people such as her across Europe, we would actually get quite a good picture of what is happening, given that we would be looking at data across a bigger area?
Dr Wollaston
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and his point applies not only to medical devices. When it comes to relatively rare conditions, we need to look at the widest possible population base in order to detect any complications. It is also important to use the widest possible population base when detecting rare complications. I thank him for highlighting that.
If we are to have informed consent for women, it has to be based on high-quality, balanced and evidence-based information, and that has been lacking. We also need to be clear that if a medical device is altered in any way, it must be part of a clinical trial. That was entirely lacking in this situation. The types of device, including the size and thickness, were changed without anyone properly recording or following up on those changes. That has to be the key lesson for the future.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an extremely important point. Does she agree that the issue here is that all one effectively has to prove for a follow-on device is its equivalence with the original device? There is therefore a fundamental flaw in how we license devices versus the far more rigorous way in which, for example, we license molecules.
Dr Wollaston
I absolutely agree. It strikes me that there has been a kind of wild west out there, with representatives saying, “Why don’t you try this one? This is probably going to be better”, without organisations setting up clinical trials from the start so that we could compare different devices, and without women giving properly informed consent that a different kind of device would be used. Lessons have to be learned not just for mesh surgery, but for other medical devices. Just because something sounds like it might be better, it does not mean to say that there will not be serious complications. Those complications may also happen at a late stage. We need databases such as EUDAMED so that we have access to the widest possible population base and clear device tracking.
Dr Wollaston
I do agree.
As I say, informed consent is essential, and that was lacking in very many cases. There are cavalier attitudes and assumptions that medical devices are somehow safer than medicines, but we know that that is simply not the case. We have to rigorously make sure that devices are all part of clinical trials, with long-term follow-up and tracking. Perhaps the Minister could update us on how we are getting on with the barcoding of devices, which clearly makes them over time. One of the tragedies is that many women are completely unaware that they have even had mesh inserted at all. That, again, has to be a lesson that we learn for the future about accurate documentation.
I hope that the Minister will comment on whether there are plans to introduce compensation for victims. As I said, many of the women I have met have had profound, life-changing injuries, and many are entitled to compensation.
Dr Huq
The hon. Lady mentions the physical injuries and physical pain, but does she agree that these women have also had great emotional pain and psychological suffering? Many are suicidal. The Minister would be well advised to introduce, within a future action plan, counselling services of some kind for these sufferers.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. Yes, absolutely: the scars have been profound not only in physical terms but in the impact on how people feel about themselves. There is a great impact not only on them but on their families and their relationships.
On access to services, while we all welcome a tertiary service being set up for victims of urogynaecological mesh, there is concern about current waiting times for those who wish to have a referral to a tertiary centre, and about access to investigations, which need to be timely. When women come forward to report deeply personal and distressing experiences, it is important that they can be seen as rapidly as possible. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing today’s debate. This is the first occasion on which we have debated this issue on the Floor of the House—in the main Chamber—and it is a very important moment in the campaign.
I thank and congratulate all the women who have been campaigning on this issue, long before it was raised by any of us in Parliament—particularly the indefatigable Kath Samson, who has led the Sling the Mesh campaign quite brilliantly in recent years and made this such a salient issue in the media, and now in Parliament. From a personal perspective, I very much thank my own constituent, Carolyn Churchill, who came to see me about this issue several years ago and revealed to me the scale of the suffering and trauma—life-changing trauma—that she had experienced as a result of having mesh implanted. We campaigned to have her mesh removed, and that has been life-changing for her. I am delighted to see her with us today in the Gallery.
It would be easy to be extremely angry and passionate about this, but I do not want to do that today, nor do I want to list the many life-changing, debilitating ways in which people have been affected. I am sure that many other Members will speak about that. I want to speak a little more dispassionately about how we have got to where we are, the history of mesh, and some of the wider lessons. While this is a tragedy for individuals, it is clear, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) highlighted, that it also speaks to deep, substantive issues not just about mesh but about licensing, monitoring and the diffusion of devices into the health marketplace more generally.
So what is the history of mesh? Mesh was introduced in the 1970s, and withdrawn because it was not felt to be an effective way of addressing issues and because many doctors felt that there were too many side effects associated with it. Like many devices, it was then improved marginally, and it was reintroduced in the late ’90s and early 2000s. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, it was marketed incredibly aggressively among doctors because it was perceived as being quick and easy—day case keyhole surgery as opposed to much more invasive, difficult and costly means of treating stress-related urinary incontinence, in particular, through colposuspension and autologous sling, using individuals’ own tissue to raise the bladder to deal with incontinence.
One understands why, in that set of circumstances where mesh was seen as safe and effective, doctors picked it up in huge numbers. In 2008-09, 14,000 women had an implant—the high point, as it were, of the usage of mesh. As my hon. Friend said, we have seen a general decline in usage over a period. Throughout that period, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the royal colleges and Ministers in this place and elsewhere have said, in effect, that it is safe, with side effects in only 1% to 3% of patients—perhaps 3% to 5%, they have conceded on occasion, but still relatively small numbers and arguably, they say, within the bounds of acceptability for surgery.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that had doctors not sold mesh aggressively to women, many women may not have chosen it as a way of solving their problems and may not have had the problems and complications they have now?
Owen Smith
Yes. The long and the short of it is that this has become such a widespread problem because younger women, in particular, were told by their doctor that there was a quick and easy way in which a minor inconvenience for many women—although a major inconvenience for some—could be dealt with.
Clearly, the scale of the side-effects was not apparent, for all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle listed, but notably because there is no long-term trials data in respect of devices. The sorts of complications that we now see emerge over a long period. That is why, in our country and across the world, such widespread concern about mesh has been emerging in every health market.
Owen Smith
My hon. Friend is right. The whole point of mesh is that it is designed to induce scar tissue in order to fuse the mesh with the muscle, and therefore trying to excise the mesh is incredibly difficult. That is why there are partial removals and some women are left with pieces of mesh inside them, even after surgery. Those sorts of complications are clearly very worrying. They ought to have been explained properly to women, but obviously were not, in very many cases.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I thank him for his work. Will he go back to what he said a few moments ago about the idea of it being acceptable that 1% to 3% of cases might go wrong? It might be acceptable if we are dealing with a small overall total, but when we are dealing with over 100,000 cases, we are saying that it is acceptable for 1,000 to 3,000 people to suffer devastating, life-changing injuries as a result of this procedure. Surely that is anything but acceptable.
Owen Smith
It absolutely is not acceptable. I hope that the Minister is not going to repeat what other Ministers have said in written statements and in this place, which is that 1% to 3% is the sort of failure rate, or complication rate, that one would expect with all sorts of surgery. The reality is that the numbers are far greater than that—far, far greater—as the audit this week shows. I will come on to address that.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that some hospitals are still advertising low failure rates, particularly for tape? That disguises the issue, particularly when they refer to failure rates in the first year and do not talk about long-term studies.
Owen Smith
Yes. We have heard that many women have this undertaken in private clinics—perhaps half of them, although we do not know how many that means. Those clinics advertise success rates very widely; we can find it all over the internet. The fact that this is described as mesh, sling, tape or ways to uplift the bladder obfuscates what we are really talking about and makes it difficult for women—and indeed, I suspect, occasionally doctors—to know the nature of what they are dealing with. What has emerged, as evidence has come through, is that there are greater problems than was appreciated. That is why, given that mesh was originally licensed to treat stress-related urinary incontinence and then extended to pelvic organ prolapse, we should be deeply concerned. Mesh is already effectively banned in our country for pelvic organ prolapse—that happened just last year. It is now to be used in research only, which is tantamount to a ban. That is happening in countries all over the world—just last year New Zealand effectively banned mesh for both SUI and POP, although I gather it may lift the ban in future. This is a worldwide problem.
We have had the audit results this week. Let us be clear that we only had an audit because of the great campaigning by Sling the Mesh, the APPG and other bodies. We asked Ministers directly to conduct it, they were good enough to do so, and I am pleased they have. The results show that far from there being just a 1% to 3% occurrence of serious complications, there is a 4% rate for complete removal of mesh. Five hundred and fifty out of the 14,000 women who were given mesh in 2008, the first year of the study, have had it removed at some point in the last decade. That is not rates of complications such as pain or sexual dysfunction: the mesh is so problematic that women have had to go back under the knife to have it cut out.
As for the complications, which the audit has tried to measure by looking at the volume of outpatient appointments, the 100,000 women who have had mesh inserted have needed almost 1 million outpatient appointments. They have gone to their GP to say they have a problem and been referred to a consultant for an outpatient appointment, whether for pain management, residual gynaecological problems or some other problem—trauma, in some instances. That must be indicative of the scale of the problem and the cost to the NHS, as illustrated by the work done for the APPG by Carl Heneghan. Some £250 million may have been spent in a decade to sort out the problems.
Mesh is a much bigger problem than has been appreciated by the clinical community, which has been incredibly defensive in dealing with it. The community must be much more open and honest about it. We have to address the issues of licensing: it cannot be enough for follow-on devices to only have to prove equivalence, or for a registry to be run simply by the royal colleges, which have been resistant in the past to having a registry. We should have a standardised process to put a registry in place to follow patients. Crucially, NICE must also get its act together. Why have we waited three years for NICE to bring forward new guidelines? It is still saying that that will not happen until next year—it needs to be done this year. This issue needs to be dealt with tomorrow.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I echo the comments of many hon. Members and express my deep concern for all women who have experienced debilitating and sometimes severe pain and discomfort following the use of vaginal mesh. In all our considerations of the use of such devices, their health, safety and wellbeing must be our first concern.
I welcome the Government’s recent announcements of Baroness Cumberlege’s review of the use of vaginal mesh and two other areas of medical safety—the use of valproate and Primodos. I was in the Chamber when the Secretary of State for Health announced that review on 21 February and I could tell from the tone of his announcement, not just the content, that he personally cares very greatly about the women affected by this issue. He wants to ensure that lessons are learned wherever possible, so that care can improve to ensure that each woman gets the treatment that is right for her—the best that can be provided for her as an individual. I am sure that the Minister shares that view.
The Secretary of State said:
“It is an essential principle of patient safety that the regulatory environment gives sufficient voice to legitimate concerns reported by patients, families and campaigners, works alongside them and responds in a rapid, open and compassionate way to resolve issues when these are raised.”—[Official Report, 21 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 166.]
Ministers want to ensure that we do better in future where necessary, and to ensure that patient voices are brought to the table. I support the review and I want to ensure that justice is done for all women who have concerns about the use of vaginal mesh. We need to ensure that we maintain public confidence.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
On the hon. Lady’s comments about justice being done, I have been approached by two constituents who have been greatly affected by vaginal mesh. One of them is unable to work. She has to be lifted up to walk as she cannot stand by herself, so she needs carers. Does the hon. Lady agree that in many cases it is not only justice that is needed, but compensation? As the Chair of the Health Committee said, we need to start looking at compensation for some women. My constituent is in her early 50s and can no longer work.
Fiona Bruce
That is something that I have said not only about this issue, but about the use of valproate. It is important that we pay close attention to the experiences and difficulties that patients have endured. We need to be more open to learning what we can from their experiences, making changes where necessary and—as the hon. Gentleman says—examining where compensation should be sought for them.
Baroness Cumberlege has been instructed to look comprehensively at the whole issue. The Government want to listen. We have all seen examples in which people have appeared to listen to concerns, nodded their heads and then gone away and done nothing. That is not what is happening here. I believe that the Secretary of State and Ministers not only want to listen carefully to concerns on this issue, but stand ready to act appropriately. For that reason, I think the proposal in the motion for a full public inquiry is inappropriate at this stage. We need to give time for Baroness Cumberlege to report. We need to urge that that be done urgently, and we need to ask Ministers questions.
I have some questions of my own for the Minister. What is the timescale for the review and what progress has been made already? Does the Minister agree that introducing an outright ban would be inappropriate before the review? Can she assure the House that the new NICE guidelines which recommend against first use of the surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse are being carefully followed throughout the NHS? Is it correct that in the vast majority of instances the use of surgical mesh has proven to be an effective intervention that has enabled many women to live happily and independently after surgery? I believe that some 1,500 women receive vaginal mesh implants each year and the majority respond well. If that is correct, it is important to balance that against the distressing individual cases that we have heard about today. I also understand that the high rate of success for the use of surgical mesh to treat hernias suggests that an outright ban would be rash at this stage, and certainly premature before the Cumberlege review reports.
What information can the Minister provide on the recent development of a new material for surgical mesh implants? What more information do we have about how that is expected to reduce discomfort because of its greater likeness to human tissue? Can the Minister update the House on what progress is being made to improve GPs’ awareness of SUI and POP and how best to treat those conditions, so that women are given the most appropriate treatment for their circumstances? Will the Cumberlege review take into account international research on this issue? We have heard some mention of it today, but I understand that no other jurisdiction has imposed an outright ban on the use of mesh.
In conclusion, the Secretary of State has made it clear that we are building on substantial work from over the past few years—the Cumberlege report comes on the back of a lot of other work, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that will all be taken into account. I ask Members to await that report before we make any final decision. Professor Keith Willett brought forward the 2017 Mesh Oversight Group report, which followed the Mesh Working Group interim report in 2015. He said that
“there has been significant progress since this work began. Information available to women and clinicians is now better and more consistent, data recording has been improved, including of complications, and women can now be referred to multi-disciplinary teams of health professionals with the experience necessary to advise women who are experiencing complications from mesh surgery on their treatment options.”
John Wilkinson, Director of Devices at the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, stated:
“We continue to see that evidence supports the use of these devices in the UK for treatment of the distressing conditions of incontinence and organ prolapse in appropriate circumstances.”
We must ensure through this review that every circumstance in which these devices are used is appropriate, and that the women involved feel confident of that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I took part in a powerful debate on the issue in Westminster Hall, and I am delighted that time has now been made available on the Floor of the House. I commend all those involved with the Sling the Mesh campaign and the all-party group, and I commend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for the leadership he has shown. This issue is finally getting the attention that it deserves. Like most Members, it was brought to my attention by a constituent who has been affected first hand, and I wish to reflect on some of the experiences and points that she shared with me, as well as considering broader policy issues on which I hope the Minister will respond.
Other Members have already mentioned ventral mesh rectopexy, which has not been included in the UK Government’s proposed audit. Sling the Mesh’s campaign research shows that 7% of its members have been affected by that specific procedure, and there is a certain amount of disappointment that it does not seem to have been included. As the Minister might know, I have written to the Secretary of State about that concern, and asked the Government to think again, particularly given the number of people affected and the devastating effect that this has had on their lives.
I also raised concerns about the need for a hospital episodes code to be allocated to that procedure. Without one, it is difficult to keep track of the number of people affected, and we have already heard about the problems arising from the lack of information about the exact number of people affected by the procedure and the mesh more generally.
There are also concerns that some recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines might have been rushed through, partly in response to media attention, which only adds to the argument for a full and comprehensive audit that includes all types of mesh procedure.
The health service is devolved in Scotland, where there is a slightly different situation. In 2014, the Scottish Government requested a suspension in the use of medical mesh by the NHS in Scotland pending safety investigations, and in 2015 the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport, Shona Robison, apologised to women who had been left in severe pain by such operations. Between 2009 and 2016, the number of women receiving mesh surgery in Scotland fell from 2,267 to just 135.
An independent review published in March last year in Scotland made eight recommendations, notably that surgical mesh implants should be used only after all other appropriate alternatives have been exhausted, and—crucially—only when women have given their fully informed consent. Scotland’s chief medical officer accepted the recommendations of that report in full, and has been clear that the requested suspension in the use of mesh implants should remain in place until she is satisfied that all recommendations have been implemented. That means that all women in Scotland who want treatment for urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse should be offered the full range of options available, and they should be fully informed of the benefits and risks associated with those procedures.
Regulation of these devices is reserved, however, and operates at UK-wide level, which is why calls for a UK-wide national clinical audit and database for recording device identifiers are so important. Scottish Government officials are working with UK colleagues to consider the possibility of an automated implant registry, which would allow unique device identifiers to be entered on the patient’s electronic record. As the Minister will know, the now Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has written to the Health Secretary to suggest a UK-wide woman’s health summit. That would allow the NHS, and relevant decision makers across the United Kingdom, to work constructively on a range of issues.
I wish to raise other aspects of regulation, and particularly EU regulation on medical devices 2017/745. That will change mesh implants for long-term or permanent use from a class IIB to a class III device, meaning that they are generally regarded as high risk. The regulations will not take full effect until 2020, which is after the Government’s preferred date for Brexit. How will important EU regulations that monitor the use of devices across EU territories be implemented or reflected in UK law and regulation after Brexit? It is important that standards are maintained to the highest possible level.
Campaigners such as my constituent are concerned about the current process of what could be called post-market vigilance, and whether some of the devices are subject to testing that is rigorous enough before they are rolled out to the market. There is a genuine concern that device manufacturers have a profit motive to develop their devices and get them on the market as quickly as possible, although equally, they have a fear of litigation, which is why better and stronger regulation from the start is key.
The risks associated with surgical mesh implants were tragically misunderstood and underestimated by healthcare providers and professionals who provided the treatment, and by patients whose lives have been so badly affected by chronic and debilitating pain. I welcome the conclusions and recommendations of the Scottish and English reviews of this procedure, which must ensure that surgical mesh implants are used only after all other appropriate alternatives have been exhausted and—crucially—only when women have given their fully informed consent.
I hope that Ministers will be willing to work with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and consider a UK-wide summit on the issue and women’s health more generally. I will finish as I started by paying tribute to my constituent and all campaigners for their bravery and courage in ensuring that this issue has been brought to our attention. It is them we must thank for the small and belated progress that has already been made, and for them we must continue to hope for more and faster progress in future.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I start by saying that I think the steps taken in Scotland, as described by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), sound extremely sensible as interim measures until final decisions can be taken. I echo the thanks due to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), their associates in the all-party group, and Sling the Mesh campaigners. I also thank my three constituents, Emma, Eileen and Helen, who have all shared with me their harrowing experiences of the procedure.
There is no doubt that when vaginal mesh procedures go wrong, the results can be truly catastrophic. A letter from the Minister states clearly that
“women have suffered atrocious and debilitating complications”
from these implants. Her counterpart in the Upper House, Lord O’Shaughnessy, has conceded this:
“While these treatments can be effective, in a small minority of cases meshes can cause serious long-term injury and disability, and prevent or reduce the ability of affected women to work.”
According to a letter from the Health Secretary to parliamentary colleagues in February:
“Clinical experts here and abroad agree that, when used appropriately, many women gain benefit from this intervention, and hence a full ban is not the right answer.”
I find it difficult to follow that logic. There might be an acceptable argument if we were talking about a procedure in which the numbers of interventions were in the hundreds, but, as I said in an intervention and as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) endorsed, we are talking here about over 100,000 people. When we are talking about over 100,000 people, if even the Government’s low figures of 1% to 3% going badly wrong are right, that is still 1,000 to 3,000 people. I have been given, by my constituent Emma, a leaflet from Sling the Mesh that says that its estimate is that at least 15% of people are seriously and badly affected. On that scale, we are talking about over 15,000 people being seriously damaged by this procedure.
Owen Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his kind remarks. Would he be surprised to learn that the chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, speaking alongside the Health Secretary in a Facebook Live broadcast just a few months ago, said that she thought the serious complication rate was between 15% and 20%? I have written to her asking where she got those numbers, although as far as I am aware she has not replied to me, because that is at odds with all the previous comments by Ministers and officials.
Dr Lewis
Indeed. I would be surprised at that, because if that is what Dame Sally believes she ought to be making different recommendations.
I have been given a particular study, which is described as the largest study of surgical mesh insertions for stress urinary incontinence. Over 92,000 women were surveyed in this particular examination, including all NHS patients in England over an eight-year period. The conclusion states:
“We estimate that 9.8% of patients undergoing surgical mesh insertion for SUI experienced a complication peri-procedurally within 30 days or within five years of the initial mesh insertion procedure. This is likely a lower estimate of the true incidence.”
I reiterate my point about acceptable and unacceptable percentages. When we are talking about these very large numbers, even relatively low percentages make the procedure too risky to be used in anything other than last-resort circumstances similar to those described by the hon. Member for Glasgow North.
In the past decade, my constituent Emma has undergone X-ray-guided injections, ultrasound scans, MRI scans, in-patient stays, tests galore, more and more scans, and, eventually, a biopsy. She has been refused referral to a mesh specialist centre. It seems highly likely that she should never have been given a mesh implant in the first place after the trauma of such a difficult birth, which leads me to the next point about inadequate warnings. I understand from my constituents that they were given little warning, and in many cases no warning at all, about the potential dangers.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making some very important points. Does he agree that prevention is better than cure? If physiotherapy were offered to women after childbirth, that might obviate the need for any surgery at all as a result of these kinds of complication.
Dr Lewis
Indeed. The problem with this issue, as it has been impressed on me at any rate, is that this has been put forward as a quick-fix alternative to other procedures, whether surgical or not, which would take much longer.
Having paid thousands of pounds for private specialist assessment, in the end Emma eventually managed to get the sort of referral she wanted. I have been given the following clinical summary of her condition:
“Vaginal mesh; foreign body giant cell reaction, chronic inflammation and fibrosis.”
I have a page here that lists some 50 different symptoms related to implant illness and foreign body giant cell reaction. I venture to suggest that if this ghastly catalogue of things that could go wrong had been shown in advance to those 100,000-plus women who have had a mesh implant, more than 90% of them at least would have turned it down.
This is what my constituent Eileen wrote to me:
“The effect that this has had and is still having on my life is massive. I can no longer carry out basic tasks at home or do things with my children due to the pain. I need to take medication every day from my GP to try and ease the pain. I cannot go to work at present due to the pain and I am currently on sickness absence leave from my job. The mesh implant that I have had has and is continuing to destroy my life. I need an operation to remove the mesh implant, but the operation is very complex and unfortunately there are limited amounts of surgeons who are experts in the full removal of these mesh implants. Due to my financial situation, I am not in a position to be able to afford to have the full removal of the mesh implant done privately and therefore I am having to wait for this to be done on the NHS which is taking far too long.”
I turn now to Helen, who probably has the most horrifying story of the lot. She was 35 when given what was described to her as routine surgery 16 tortured years ago. She was initially told that it was her fault that her body was rejecting the two mesh implants. She then went through a cycle of implants, the removal of protrusions and eroded segments and seven bouts of surgery. Three TVTs—trans-vaginal tapes—are still inside her, she suffers chronic pain from orbital nerve damage, constantly needs painkillers and has had constant side effects, indifferent treatment and a refusal to admit fault or to refer her to an out-of-area specialist in mesh removal. She writes:
“I do not want anyone from the hospital coming near me ever again. I have lost complete faith in them. I have been lied to and told repeatedly it was my body rejecting the mesh; but, unbelievably, they kept putting more in.”
She suffers from truly terrible bowel problems, some no doubt caused by the side effects of the painkillers and the sleep aids she has to take. Consequently, she suffers from depression, loss of confidence and lack of self-esteem. She further writes:
“I feel let down by professionals who were supposed to treat me to the best of their ability. There has been information about the adverse effects of mesh around for years, yet these doctors are still happily inserting them into thousands of women.”
She is desperate to be referred to one of the few doctors who specialise in mesh removal and feels trapped under the control of the very people who have let her down. She continues:
“I want these devices out of my body.”
Who can blame her?
Let me conclude by quoting, from an article in The Daily Telegraph of 23 October last year, a lady who suffered for eight years:
“I just wish I had never, ever had it done. I would rather have coped with that very minor problem of stress incontinence than this. If I had known even one of the possible risks of the surgery there is no way I would have had it done. I am furious that I was never told that this could happen.”
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for securing this debate, which is of paramount importance. I have listened to the contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I was struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who said she felt that we could not say now that the use of surgical mesh should be suspended. I have been brought up to think that if it has four legs, eats grass, produces milk and moos, it is not a fish. If we are hearing from the women who have had the mesh implants that they are not working, that they have destroyed their lives and that they have debilitating painful consequences, why on earth would we try to justify not suspending the use of this mesh? It is horrendous.
On 21 March, I asked the Prime Minister about surgical mesh. She advised in her letter of 28 March that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency review concludes that the benefits of vaginal mesh implants outweigh the risks. How can this be? How can it be that people who have gone in for a day’s surgery and come out thinking, “My life’s going to be better—I can rock climb, mountain bike and run with my kids,” find that they cannot move and are in constant pain? Some constituents who have contacted me are reduced to being in wheelchairs. How can we possibly say that the benefits outweigh the risks? It is horrendous.
Furthermore, according to both the NHS and the MHRA, the risk of vaginal mesh complications after an implant is stated as being between 1% and 3%. However, as other Members have mentioned, a recent study for Nature Research found that 9.8% of people suffered complications within five years of surgery. The Sling the Mesh Facebook page has over 6,000 members. The numbers do not add up: more people are suffering from the mesh complication than are credited in the statistics.
Even former surgeons such as Dr Peter Jones have declared that they would not take the risk of using mesh. A survey by Sling the Mesh found that over 60% of patients are suffering from anxiety and depression. I therefore urge the Minister not to risk more women having their lives blighted. We have heard that mesh can shrink, degrade and twist in a woman’s body—I put that to the Prime Minister in my question—and we now know that women have been left in permanent pain, unable to walk and unable to work because of the procedure.
I would argue that, due to the limited remit of the audit in the Government’s “Retrospective Review of Surgery for Vaginal Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence using Tape or Mesh”, many women have been missed, which is why the stats do not stack up. Women who for years have gone back and forth to their GP for pain relief or antibiotics and have then become resistant to the antibiotics, women who have been treated in the last 12 months, and women who have not yet been referred have been overlooked. An urgent public inquiry must be undertaken into the number of women adversely affected and why the safety of so many has been disregarded.
We have heard about Kath Sansom, the founder of the Sling the Mesh UK campaign, who is in the Public Gallery. She said that she
“lost hope for the future”
when she underwent the surgery. She ran a poll of 500 women, and 83% said that they had not been fully informed of the risks. People have the right to make an informed choice and the right to receive the information and understand the implications of undertaking the procedure.
Furthermore, 70% reported having lost their sex lives and that they are still facing adverse events as late as 18 years after the procedure. These events include debilitating pain in the groin, pelvis and legs, as well as infection and inflammation. People are basically not able to conduct their usual business, such as playing with their children or going mountain biking, as I mentioned, and it is not fair. Most women in Kath’s support group added that they do not feel there is any aftercare following the implant procedure. That ties into the availability of information and the ability to make an informed choice.
Despite the recommendations from the NHS England report, less than 27% of clinicians have reported on these adverse events. Private hospitals are not audited for adverse events. Worse still, doctors who have been struck off by the General Medical Council are still able to work in these institutions. That is unacceptable.
Under the US Physician Payments Sunshine Act 2010, manufacturers must submit annual data on payment and transfers of value made to covered recipients. Several studies have been carried out by organisations with shares in mesh manufacturers. Similar legislation designed to increase the transparency of financial relationships between physicians, teaching hospitals and manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and biologics is required in this country. We need to understand what the kickback is. If someone is being asked the question, “Do you think mesh is good?” and have investments in mesh, why would they say no? We need to be more transparent and understand what these women are going through.
These sequential calamities must each be understood and corrected so that they are not repeated. Those who have suffered and faced complications must be referred via their GP to a specialist unit with multidisciplinary teams of professionals who can listen—not just hear what they are saying, but listen and understand what they are going through—advise and support them, and ensure that no more patients are harmed. I urge the Government to suspend the use of surgical mesh and tape for all procedures.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this debate. Although we went in front of the Backbench Business Committee together, the truth is that she did most of the work. I am hugely grateful for what she has done in this space. Having set herself a very high bar with the way in which she opened the Westminster Hall debate in October, I can safely say that mesh-injured women in Scotland will be incredibly grateful for the support that she has shown them through her remarks today.
In the six months since that debate, there have been a number of important developments both internationally and domestically. There have been landmark announcements in Australia and New Zealand, as other hon. Members have mentioned. While the UK Government have so far not chosen to take similar action here, I will certainly continue my efforts with the all-party group on surgical mesh implants to persuade them that banning mesh is the right thing to do, particularly now that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued guidance that favours an effective ban in practice.
There was a Public Petitions Committee debate in the Scottish Parliament just before Christmas—as I set out at our previous Westminster Hall debate, the Scottish Mesh Survivors group was left with very little option but to continue its fight through the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee following a hugely disappointing report from an independent review group established by the Scottish Government. A further review exercise is currently progressing in Scotland. However, it will not re-evaluate the conclusions of the independent review—it will assess only the merits of the process by which those conclusions were reached, so it has the potential to undermine that flawed exercise even further.
At this stage, I pay tribute to the three amigos in the Scottish Parliament: my Conservative colleague Jackson Carlaw, Labour’s Neil Findlay, and the Scottish National party’s Alex Neil, the former Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. All three immediately recognised that there was a serious issue to be investigated and continue to champion mesh-injured women across Scotland, such as my constituents Elaine Holmes and Lorna Farrell.
One of the big difficulties is that it has been very hard to get media uptake, particularly in Holyrood with the male-dominated press lobby. They found it a bit icky and did not want to write about it, so I pay tribute to Marion Scott, a journalist who has been absolutely dogged in her determination to highlight this issue, and to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who has gone out of his way to make sure that it gets pushed up in the media across the rest of the UK, giving it exposure that it would have otherwise been very difficult to achieve.
In February, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care outlined a number of important measures to review mesh and investigate what had gone wrong. It is fair to say that a lot of the campaign groups found the overall package slightly underwhelming, but it is vital that their input into the process is given the utmost attention. Of course, this week the retrospective audit was published.
As has been said, it is right that the Health Minister, Lord O’Shaughnessy, has instructed the chief medical officer in England to respond to the findings with some urgency following engagement with the medical authorities and, importantly, with the patient groups representing women whose lives have been wrecked by mesh. Too often when there have been statements, guidance and responses, the views and experiences of these women have been completely ignored. They have been talked about as though they are not there. Their experiences have been undermined and dampened down, so if patient groups are to have any faith in the UK Government, it is important that patient voices are front and centre of the process.
I was particularly pleased when the Secretary of State announced to the House that £1.1 million would be provided for the establishment of a comprehensive mesh database. That is a positive development, and mesh-injured women in Scotland have reacted warmly to it, but they have also made it clear that, if the authorities are to gain a true picture of the suffering that mesh can cause, it must be accompanied by a requirement for mandatory reporting of all mesh procedures. Crucially, as a number of others have said, that must encompass not just NHS but private procedures, because many of the women concerned were treated privately. If mandatory reporting is not already envisaged, I urge the Department to explore that possibility.
The setting up of a database in Scotland was one of the six points included in the petition that Scottish Mesh Survivors brought to the Scottish Parliament in 2014 and 2017. It is fair to say that progress has been pitiful, and it was therefore welcome that the Secretary of State made clear that he was open to the idea of a UK-wide database and to working closely with the devolved Administrations with the aim of establishing a clear UK-wide picture. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), I wrote to the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport about the database, and was pleased when she confirmed that her officials had been liaising with colleagues at Westminster and the other devolved Administrations. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly how those communications will proceed.
In view of the failure in Scotland to proceed with a database in the four years since the survivors’ petition was first brought to Holyrood, Scottish involvement in the issue of a UK-wide database—
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the discussion in Scotland was about the need for the database to be UK-wide? We have talked about EU registration. The bigger a population, the sooner a problem is noticed. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is UK-wide. It is not a question of small databases. The Scottish Government were not obstructing the proposal. The profession felt that the database needed to be UK-wide, and needed to feed into the MHRA.
Paul Masterton
I certainly agree that a UK-wide database will be far more effective and beneficial in providing a true representation of the story of the mesh-injured women, but the hon. Lady must accept that the women in Scotland have found the response of the Scottish Government—and, in particular, that of the current Cabinet Secretary—fairly poor.
A lot has happened in the past six months, both at home and abroad. Some progress has been made, and important steps have been taken, but we have much further to go. Members of Parliament are often asked, “What do you want to achieve in this place? What tangible thing do you want to walk away from here and say that you have done?” Securing justice for mesh-injured women is right up there at the top of the list. Let me simply say to those watching at home and those in the Public Gallery that the fight goes on.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
Let me begin by adding my voice to those of other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing and introducing a debate on this important issue.
I agree with much of what has been said by Members on both sides of the House. It is good to hear such similar views expressed about the need to think about what action should be taken to help women who are suffering some horrendous conditions as a result of this procedure. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to take part in the Westminster Hall debate, so I have found the many speeches that I have heard today very informative. Some, indeed, have been very technical. Questions have been asked, and the answers will be useful to us because we shall be able to convey them to our constituents. I also welcome the specific recommendations that have been made, particularly by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether mesh operations should be suspended while the audit and other matters are being resolved. I think that many of us are somewhat confused about why the risk should have been considered acceptable.
Like, I suspect, many other Members, I first heard of the issue when I was contacted by a number of constituents via social media. I subsequently met some of them face to face. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) described the specific circumstances of some of his constituents, and my experience has been very similar. I have sat and listened to many women describe what they have suffered. Theirs is a strong, powerful story of pain, and of the incredible impact on their lives, their families, their marriages and their relationships. Hearing such stories, we must ask ourselves how such pain, risk and suffering can be justified by the cases in which the procedure does work. I know that many of us are appalled when we hear of the experiences of the numerous women whose lives have been blighted by these procedures.
A number of issues have been raised, and I do not want to reiterate what has already been said. Instead, I shall focus on two elements that I do not think have been dealt with in any detail. First, we need to ensure that all the women affected are identified and fully supported, and benefit from the highest-quality care and intervention that can be provided at this stage. That, for me, is a priority, which involves two important considerations. One is the question of where we are right now—what these women are suffering right now, and what we can do to help them to try to find resolution. That journey will require the highest levels of expertise and support.
As we have heard, many of the medical interventions involved are complicated, and, given their previous experience of medical procedures, many women are understandably deeply apprehensive and worried about undergoing further necessary procedures. The right experience and qualifications, and a wrap-around support service, are critical not only to securing the best medical outcomes but to building confidence among the many women who have been let down by interventions in the past. I empathise with women who know that they will have to undergo even more medical procedures, even after having such horrific experiences and suffering the consequences of the previous interventions.
There is also the question of the suspension of mesh operations. I have written to the authorities in Northern Ireland and to the Secretary of State requesting a suspension pending the outcome of the audit and the review. In circumstances such as this, I am always very aware that many of us here are not doctors. We are not members of the medical profession. We are told—this has featured in the responses to my correspondence—that even Departments and their civil servants must and do listen to the medical professionals. It is important for NICE to move more quickly, though, because its recommendations will be crucial for frontline care, advice and the pathways that are followed for women who present with the issues that have led to this procedure.
Secondly—this has been discussed at some length today—there are the critical questions of why this happened and why it was not picked up earlier. I welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement of a review, because it will cover some of those issues, but we need to understand how we have reached this position. I have spoken to constituents, and to members of the lobby from across Northern Ireland, and their common experience is that they were not taken seriously enough at all stages. Complaints made to medical professionals about complications were often dismissed, even when the women were in extreme and chronic pain. The database has been referred to. There should have been a database at an earlier stage so that the information could be located. I fully support a UK-wide database, because, as has been said, it would be the best way of gaining a wider sense of what is happening.
It is worrying that hundreds and thousands of women across the United Kingdom were individually presenting with complications from these procedures, yet nobody joined up the dots until a very late stage. I am glad that that is now happening—I am glad there is a review—but many women have had to suffer for too many years without the dots being joined and action being taken.
It is not acceptable that women presenting with problems were told by some GPs or other medical practitioners that perhaps it was just women’s problems—that these were the types of complications that generally arise in issues associated with the menopause. The problems were dismissed, and women felt dismissed and that their issues were not being taken seriously. That is wrong and unacceptable.
We hear a lot at the moment in Northern Ireland—I am sure it is the same across the United Kingdom—about patient-focused care and the patient-focused experience in the health service. Yet in all the stories I have heard about this issue, there is the common experience of people not being taken seriously and not having a patient-focused experience. That must be addressed urgently.
I look forward to the outcome of the review, and to some of the actions being discussed such as the audit and the setting up of the database, but it is important that we identify not only what went wrong, but clear actions to take to stop it happening again. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and make sure that actions are identified and that we progress.
Finally, I thank the advocates who have done a huge amount of work to raise awareness of this issue across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank and congratulate the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), as is customary and also entirely justified on this occasion. This issue must be kept in the public eye.
One of the great privileges of being an MP is being able to give people a voice—to represent people in our constituencies who have been wronged, often in terrible circumstances through no fault of their own. In this case, for me that person is here today in the Gallery: Jacqui Cheetham. I am delighted to be able to represent her story, and her words are far more powerful than mine could ever be. When she visited me at my surgery what came across was the scale of the problem and also its traumatic consequences given the relatively minor condition that Jacqui suffered from before the operation took place.
I would like to use Jacqui’s words rather than my own, because, as I have said, they are far more powerful than mine could ever be. She explained that she had two surgeries using mesh, in 2005 and 2006:
“Within a few days of surgery I had severe pain in my groin and bladder. I was referred back to York Hospital on many occasions. The surgeon said he could find nothing wrong with me and eventually recommended I saw a psychiatrist, as he believed it was all in my head. As a teenager I had a history of mental health problems when my parents went through a nasty divorce. I was left to bring up my younger sister and take my main, secondary school exams. I simply could not cope but because this is on my medical records, even though the mesh operation was many years later they still referred back to that time and thought this must also be psychological. My GP spoke up for me and told them I was not depressed and demanded they find a solution. Eventually I was given a MRI scan and the mesh was found sticking into my bladder. I was then operated on to partially remove the mesh. After the operation, the surgeon described the pain of the mesh sticking into me as being like barbed wire as the raw edges of the material had hardened. It’s intended that your body should mould itself into it and removal would be like extracting it from concrete…
Since 2006 I have lived my life in constant pain. I take concentrated Oramorph and wear…Buprenorphine patches. I also take codeine for ‘break-through’ pain.
I was a fit young mother in my late 30s when I had this done, suffering mild incontinence. My ambition was to run the London Marathon and I found the incontinence merely a nuisance. How I wish I could go back to those days! I would never have had this operation, had I known this possible outcome. I was not warned of any such dangers.
I now cannot walk far. I can’t stand or sit for extended periods of time. I struggle with simple tasks that require my concentration. Both my drugs and my pain affect my sleep. I am now 50, though I feel much older.
Quite simply, this operation has ruined my life and has had a massive impact on my family. My children are now grown-up but they were young at that time and I was unable to be a proper mum to them; unable to run and play with them as a parent should. There seems to be a misconception that the mesh which causes the greatest problems is “prolapse mesh” but this simply is not the case. All mesh can cause problems.”
I know that the ministerial team is very concerned about, and aware of, these issues, in part due to the fine work of parliamentarians. Ministers rightly point out that no healthcare system in the world has yet banned this treatment, and they set about the review in February 2018, which has provided much of the information that we now have to address these points.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) pointed out, the scale of the problem is becoming clearer, but I do not believe we understand the true scale yet. The recent Guardian report said that out of 100,000 operations there were 6,000 removals, so there is an issue with at least 6%, and that is just the ones that have been removed, so we know the scale is greater than is currently acknowledged.
Something needs to be done now. It is heart-warming that the people who come to our surgeries to tell their stories want most of all to prevent this from happening to others, and we must pay credit to the people from the Sling the Mesh campaign for what they have done to benefit others as well as trying to redress some of the difficulties they experience themselves.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle raised the issue of physiotherapy, and she is absolutely right: prevention is better than cure. She mentioned that this problem has cost the healthcare system £245 million; it would be a true economy, not a false economy, to implement what she suggests as a simple first step for new mothers.
We also need to get to the bottom of the issue by having a true audit, including of, for example, private patients, to make sure we know the true scale of the problem; I support those calls. It must also be sensible when there are alternatives to look at a suspension of this treatment today. Burch colposuspension and autologous sling are alternative treatments, and it makes sense to me and certainly my constituent to suspend this treatment and look at other treatments in the meantime while we find an alternative. Perhaps the new Sheffield University treatment will prove effective, but, as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee said, it needs to go through a clinical trial rather than women effectively being used as human guinea pigs. I support the extension of that until clinical trials can show that we have a solution without the traumatic consequences that affected so many women.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this debate and on the power of work that she has done on behalf of the women affected by mesh. I also pay tribute to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on surgical mesh implants, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), for his work. I declare an interest as a member and vice-chair of the group. In the run-up to this debate, I have been contacted by many constituents whose lives have been devastated by mesh. Because of the sensitivity of the topic and the embarrassment that many women feel, it is a major step for them to come forward and speak so bravely about their experiences. For these women, what started as a slight leakage of urine and an embarrassing discomfort has escalated into life-changing disabilities, and I want to use this speech as an opportunity to raise some of their cases.
My constituent, Karen, underwent a hysterectomy in 2008. The following year, she suffered a significant prolapse and was given a pelvic organ mesh. After that procedure, she began to suffer from severe incontinence, which affected her ability to work. She mentioned this to the consultant, who said that there was a simple procedure that would help. She had that procedure, but was given no further information about the risks and possible complications. In 2011, she started to experience severe pain and was referred to a new consultant, who told her that the pain had nothing to do with her implant. She finally had the implant removed in 2013, but has been left severely disabled and now has to use a wheelchair when she travels long distances. This has been a real problem for her because, she says, people talk to the person who is with her, rather than to her. She therefore feels as though she has been dehumanised as a result of this as well. Had Karen been told what the mesh procedures entailed, she would never have agreed to have the implant. She and a group of survivors in Scotland have set up a Facebook group. It started with 17 women, but it now has more than 500 members.
Another constituent, Jean, had her implant inserted in 2006, but she realised from day one that it had not worked and that she was still incontinent. She says:
“The full side effects of having polypropylene plastic TVT-O are as yet unknown. What is known is removal is complicated and carries its own risks, due to the fact that the mesh implanted in the woman’s pelvic region is designed to be permanent. In cases where a surgeon does a partial removal and leaves the rest then the long term result can be further degradation and an acceleration of mesh debris into the body. To remove the Monarc sling that I have, a surgeon has to cut through many structures including bone and muscle, and is known to be nearly impossible to remove safely without further damage.”
In fact, one consultant has described mesh removal as being like trying to remove warm chewing gum from someone’s hair.
At the most drastic end of the scale, some women now face losing their organs as a result of this procedure. This has happened to Claire, a mum of three, who says:
“I had a mesh implant in September 2011 for stress incontinence. I woke with excruciating pain and struggled to walk. I had the mesh removed in July 2015 but unfortunately the damage I suffered is severe. I am now disabled for life. I use crutches for short distance, wheelchair for longer. My nerves are severely damaged, I have autoimmune issues, foreign body reactions, currently use anal irrigation system for my bowel as it can’t work on its own. Next for me is to have my bladder and bowel removed. Mesh products are simply not fit for use in the human body. These procedures need to be stopped now.”
Cathleen, from Benbecula, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), has said:
“The Government is currently banning the use of plastic because of damage to the environment, destroying sea life and leaching into the food chain. Why on earth place such plastics into the human body when I like many others have suffered mesh erosion as my body rejected the polypropylene?”
The issue that is raised repeatedly in all these cases is the lack of information given to patients. Some were told that the procedure was simple; others were told that a little piece of tape or a sling would be inserted. None was told about side effects or complications. Most were not offered non-mesh procedures, which might cost slightly more in the short term but which would have massive savings in the long term because these women would not need to live on benefits, having had to give up work, with all the other problems that that entails.
In Scotland, the suspension of mesh has been welcomed, but because the regulation of such devices is still a reserved issue, we need the MHRA to stop recommending the use of mesh before it can be banned outright. Medical devices do not go through the same rigorous level of testing as drugs, and the effects are often not experienced immediately. This is why it is so important to carry out an audit of the women who have had the procedure. I welcome the review of surgical devices announced by the Government, as well as the announcement that they will conduct a full registry of all mesh procedures. However, it should be noted that the number of women affected may well be far higher than estimated. Many women who experience problems are told that their issues are not mesh-related. Are those women’s problems being captured in the current mesh figures?
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I, too, have constituents who have been affected by this, and one of them has written to me to say:
“I had this operation carried out—it was only effective for a few months and had failed, leaving me with constant discomfort…The operation itself was a long one and I have so far managed to put up with this discomfort as I really don’t want further surgery.”
Does the hon. Lady—and indeed the Minister—have any thoughts on how many people might be going under the radar because they are in a similar situation to my constituent?
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That concern has been raised time and again in the all-party group. We believe that many of the women affected are not being captured in the figures, and it is important that we should carry out an audit to find out what is going on. That audit should include GP visits and visits to consultants. They should all be part of it.
Mesh implants have been described as the “gold standard” treatment for incontinence and as a “minor procedure” that would change lives. Sadly, the procedure did change many lives, and crucially, the device manufacturers who have marketed mesh so aggressively are making a profit on it. For the women affected, the manufacturers’ profits have come at a heavy price. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) has been working closely with a constituent, Nancy from Dunoon, who was left suicidal after having mesh implants several years ago. Four months ago, Nancy underwent an operation to have the mesh removed, and I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing her a full and speedy recovery. She has said that
“if they’d discovered this kind of serious fault in a car, they’d have recalled them all and stopped making them. So why didn’t they do that with mesh?”
It is important that we now have a complete suspension of mesh implants. Also, a number of Members have mentioned that physiotherapy should be offered as standard for new mothers, to give them other methods of dealing with slight incontinence and to help them to restore their core after birth. Many mesh survivors are now calling for a sunshine payment Act, as there is in America, that lists all industry funding, sponsorship or grants received by GPs and surgeons. This would show any conflicts of interest, and it would help with all medical issues, not just mesh. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the campaigners from Sling the Mesh and from Scottish Mesh Survivors for all their work in bringing this issue to the attention of the wider public and to the attention of us here in this place.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing it. It has been quite something to listen to the many stories that have been repeated here this afternoon. My involvement in this issue was prompted not only by conversations with my former colleague in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), but by the case of my constituent, Mrs Beverley Jelfs, who had mesh inserted for a prolapse.
When she emailed me, she said:
“My life has changed so much since having this device inserted in me in 2011. I can no longer work due to pain, fatigue, not able to sit or stand for long. The mesh eroded through my vaginal wall, which 7 weeks later had to have part removal. I have no intimate relationship with my husband, due to the mesh damaging me…I have gone from a very busy and socially active life, to being a depressed lady.”
That sums up the impact that the issue has on her. Although her work was done at a local private hospital, I also asked my local Torbay Hospital—the main NHS hospital serving my constituency—for details of the approach it adopted.
Given the age demographics of Torbay, I had expected slightly more cases to be raised with me. Those that have been raised involve people who have been treated at a particular private hospital. Given that this is a wider issue, I do not think that it is constructive to bring the name of the hospital into the debate, but it is interesting to note that that is where these queries come from.
I was pleased to get a detailed response from Julian Barrington, the consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at the hospital, giving me some of the figures for the work he has done. I am pleased to note that the failure rates reported back on some of his cases have been a lot lower than some of the averages, but in his letter he makes the point that none of the patients in Torbay has been treated with Ethicon meshes, over which most of the concerns and complications have arisen. His other comment is welcome: given some of the issues being raised, since October 2017 he has suspended all vaginal surgery using synthetic mesh until the results of the NICE recommendations are published and until professional medical bodies make a decision.
Owen Smith
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly interesting point. Does he agree that it is inexplicable that NICE continues to say that it cannot produce its new guidance until the spring of 2019, when we and the medical fraternity have been asking for it for the past two years?
Kevin Foster
I think that the comments make it clear that medical practitioners are waiting to hear what the guidance is and would like it as soon as possible. As politicians in this Chamber, we should not necessarily look to say what the NICE guidance should be and should not put pressure on NICE to come up with particular outcomes, but NICE should look to resolve this uncertainty.
I welcome the pre-emptive approach that my local hospital has taken, but that then leads to a debate about whether other practitioners are continuing and whether my hospital is taking the right approach—I believe it is, and I suspect that Opposition Members who have been involved with this issue believe that it is, too. It is clear that guidance needs to be produced as quickly as it sensibly can be to allow hospital clinicians dealing with patients day to day to know that they are making the right decisions. I welcome the fact that my hospital has made a pre-emptive decision, but agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) that it makes sense for NICE to try to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and provide clarity.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether it is becoming common practice in the NHS for individual hospitals and surgeons to adopt the approach taken by Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust. Is it more common or does it involve only a small number of hospitals? Is there an emerging body of medical opinion on this matter? Although I might welcome what Torbay Hospital has done, if individual hospitals effectively start forming their own policy that will raise questions in other locations.
Given the concerns raised with me, I welcomed the review announced in February 2018. I can remember being in the Chamber to listen to the Secretary of State’s statement on this and a range of issues affecting women’s health, as well as on whether some of the processes we have in place are as strong as they are in other areas. To reflect on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), given the issue, many of those affected are reticent about making a noise. I sought direct permission from my constituent to mention her name and condition in the Chamber, but one wonders whether there are a number of people who do not want to make a noise about this—through embarrassment, to put it bluntly—which makes it different from concerns about other treatments.
I would also be interested to hear from the Minister what liaison is taking place between the UK Government and the Governments of New Zealand and Australia, who have adopted an approach that is similar to my hospital’s. What impact is that having? I have not had complaints from people about not being able to have a procedure for a particular problem while this treatment is suspended, and that tells me that the hospital’s decision has not had a negative effect. I would be interested to know the experience of clinicians in other jurisdictions that are incredibly similar to ours, particularly those from New Zealand.
Reading the motion, I can understand the call for a public inquiry. My only reticence is that such inquiries can become lawyer-fests. I would much rather we were dealing with the situation now, and getting guidance to clinicians in place quickly. We could decide at a later date, perhaps, whether such an examination of what happened would be appropriate. For me, the priority is to get action towards a resolution and for those women and men who have been affected to find medical solutions that can deal with their existing, ongoing pain.
I welcome the debate. It is good to have had contributions at such a level. I am pleased to note the approach my local trust has taken, and I would be interested to see whether that trend is emerging across the NHS and, if it is, what impact it is having on statistics for those who are negatively affected. Does it have any impact at all on waiting times for a particular treatment? If it does not, the pre-emptive approach would seem to be right clinically, in dealing with the problems we have heard about today and in preventing more people from being affected.
I hope that today’s debate will also give hope to those who are suffering that their plight has not been ignored—it is not something that has been talked about quietly somewhere else because of any perceived embarrassment. I hope that lessons will be implemented that prevent others from having to go down the same path as my brave constituent, Mrs Jelfs. I know that her priority in speaking out and having her story relayed was to prevent at least one other person going through what she has been through over the past seven years.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this important and timely debate. Excellent points have been made by all Members who have spoken, so I will be brief to allow time for the Front-Bench responses. We have heard about some harrowing cases involving people’s constituents, most recently from the hon. Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). There has been cross-party support for the motion and the demands on the Government to act. I think that everybody who has spoken today thinks that mesh should no longer be used in surgical procedures until the inquiry reports back.
On 6 February, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the remarkable women from the Sling the Mesh campaign, many of whom are in the Public Gallery looking down at us. These women have been left debilitated and in agony following mesh implants. I was shocked as each one told me about their own personal and horrific ordeal. They told me how they were in unbearable pain when they sat down or stood up, how they had gone from being active, energetic women in the prime of their lives to being left housebound, in some cases unable to work, with a complete loss of their sex life. I can only imagine the mental suffering that these brave women and other victims have had to go through.
One thing that I found particularly striking was how many of these women said that they almost did not have the mesh implants but were swayed by the casualness with which they were sold to them when they were weighing up their options on how best to resolve their medical conditions relating to prolapse or incontinence. None was told of the risks of vaginal mesh, and I am sure that if they had been they would have considered other, less risky, alternatives. No one goes to hospital expecting to be cured of one problem only to be given another a thousand times worse. There are serious questions that need to be answered about the mis-selling and promotion of mesh, and we have not had much of a response on that despite many requests.
I find it staggering that, despite the potential risks being known, mesh is still being used today. Surely its use should be stopped and women warned of the dangers. Even by the NHS’s own figures, 1% to 3% of vaginal mesh implants result in complications. The figure is far too high. Other studies have the figure as high as 10%, and it could be higher—we do not know. It is worrying that we have such cases at all. Whether the figure is 1%, 3% or 10%, even a one in 100 chance of being maimed by an implant is a price not worth paying.
The Government should follow the example of New Zealand, which has managed to stop using mesh. Is it really acceptable for the Government knowingly to allow women to be injured by the state in this way? How many more women need to suffer while they wait for NICE to complete its review?
The Government’s retrospective review of surgery for vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence using tape or mesh is a welcome start to finding out how many women have been affected, but the scope of the review is too narrow and there is a real fear that women will be missed. Why cannot women from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland be included in the review, and what about men affected by surgical mesh?
I call on the Government to ban mesh implants immediately and to widen the scope of their retrospective review. NICE should bring forward its review and the Government should introduce pelvic floor physiotherapy on the NHS as standard for all new mothers. We need to find out what has gone wrong, and why. The victims of the mesh scandal have suffered enough. We need action now.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I, too, pay tribute to the APPG and to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I also pay tribute to the women who have campaigned. If they had not campaigned, the issue would not be at this point today.
As a surgeon for more than 30 years, I have to start by pointing out that there is no such thing as risk-free surgery. There will never be an operation about which it could be said there is not a 1% complication rate. When I looked at complications and talked about risks, I used to write them down on the consent form so that I went through every single one with patients. We talk about the complications that are minor and common, and we warn patients, “This will probably happen, but it’s minor.” The complications that are life threatening or quality of life threatening, even if they are rare, should be up there in block capitals so that women know.
We, as surgeons, have a duty to minimise risk and to inform the patient so that, as has been discussed, decent and informed consent can be given. The problem of this saga is that a lot of the surgeons were not informed. If a surgeon is doing 30, 20 or 15 mesh implants a year and they become aware of a problem only in two or three years’ time, it does not register in their brain as being common. We also know that many of these cases really presented only years later, so that feedback loop—“Oh my God, we have a problem!”—was not there. That is why so much of this is to do with regulation, reporting and, inevitably, the yellow card.
Gordon Marsden
Obviously, the hon. Lady has enormous personal experience of surgery and of this area. Does she agree that one of the other possible problems for some surgeons, although I hope not many, is that in this country we have historically been very bad at explaining risk-benefit analysis to patients? If people are being offered an operation for a condition that is not necessarily life threatening, the judgment in a risk-benefit analysis is very different from that for something far more serious.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fact, there are studies showing how difficult it is even to explain risk, let alone risk-benefit, to patients. Certainly in the cancer field, in which I spent so much time, patients will go through really appalling treatments even if there is only a relatively small chance of cure. As a clinician, it is difficult to explain a lot of this.
Sufficient information has not been given to the medics, and therefore clearly not to the patients. We have heard this described as a “minor, straightforward procedure”.
Owen Smith
Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem is that mesh was marketed so widely as being a quick fix? Previously, far more expert urogynaecological surgeons would have undertaken what was far more difficult and invasive surgery—colposuspension or autologous sling. When it went to day-case surgery and, effectively, keyhole surgery, a much wider range of less expert surgeons was suddenly involved.
Dr Whitford
I would echo that. We should always be a little suspicious whenever an impression is given that an operation is easy and quick. We hear talk within the medical system of the problems of specialisation and how, actually, we need to go back to having more generalists. The depth of knowledge on breast cancer now would make it impossible for a general surgeon, who might also be doing upper gastrointestinal and lower gastrointestinal surgery, to keep up with that knowledge. That is why we will always need specialists. The danger is when something is thought to be trivial and straightforward.
Although it has been mentioned that the two problems—pelvic organ prolapse and stress incontinence, and particularly the latter—are very minor, there is a broad range. There will be patients for whom the condition is incredibly distressing and who simply cannot leave the house because of their incontinence. We should not put everyone in the same basket.
As has been mentioned, the traditional repair for prolapse would have been colposuspension, which lifts the womb and then buttresses the muscular tissues of the pelvis. The surgeons thought that by adding mesh to muscle that is clearly weakened—that is why prolapse happens in the first place—they would make the muscle stronger.
There was a perception that the results of colposuspension were poor, and a big American paper in 1997 suggested that prolapse recurred in 29% of women. As a surgeon, that seems like catastrophic failure, but, reading the small print of that paper, two thirds of those women were hugely obese and one third had bronchitis and were coughing all the time. There was also a high rate of smoking. It was not the average range of women with prolapse; it was actually a particularly high-risk group. Unfortunately, the paper seems to have dominated the profession’s perception for years.
The problem right across this is that not enough trial work and research were done at the beginning and that the follow-up was far too short. What we have seen is that the mesh problems emerge only after time goes on. There was a Cochrane review in 2007 looking at multiple smaller studies, and it showed no benefit from the use of mesh in prolapse. Since then, we have seen a slow decrease in the use of mesh, but the recent review shows that 2,500 women with prolapse in England had mesh put in last year. That means the issue is still happening.
A 2011 EU study showed no benefit from mesh in prolapse even for recurrence, and one of the few prospective studies, in which the data is collected as time goes on, also shows no benefit. That prospective study was published in 2016, so the information has not been available for decades, and it found that the mesh complication rate at two years is 12%. That is at two years, so the rate can only go up. The Scottish review of 20 years of data from 1997 to 2016 shows only a 4% recurrence of prolapse after the traditional repair. Mesh is no better at avoiding recurrence.
Colposuspension has surgical complications: a surgeon might damage something; a surgeon might injure the bowel or bladder, which is much more common; or a patient might get a wound infection. Those complications fade as time goes by whereas, as has been reported in the Chamber today, the mesh complications do not occur early, but occur as time goes on. In Scotland, after the review, the advice is absolutely clear: mesh should not be used in cases of prolapse as a routine first procedure.
We have heard about stress incontinence and the option of physiotherapy has been talked about. That option should have been used much earlier; there should have been trials of it. As has been said, this is about getting to women in the post-childbirth period so that we have the chance of strengthening their pelvic muscles. The initial repair for stress incontinence was the tension-free vaginal tape, which developed in the late 1990s. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 2002, with the one-year follow-up report finding only a 1% complication rate and finding that the patients had less pain, and that they recovered more quickly and went home more quickly. This seemed like a great solution, which is part of why the surgeons were so convinced by it; it seemed quick and easy. They were talking about a keyhole approach and the way we deal with gallbladder and other procedures.
The problem that has gone on since has been talked about. We have had the morphing of one tape into another, and one material and so on changing, with little other research having been done and little follow-up. When that trial did follow up its patients, it found that at 10 years the mesh complication rate was 5%. Because the focus was on not injuring the bladder, we find in clinical terms that that has been the focus of the clinicians, because that is what they knew from colposuspension. The idea that two, three, four or five years later people would develop mesh complications was something the clinicians were not expecting and certainly not looking out for.
The incidence of bladder injury for the retropubic tension-free tape was about 10%, which is why the transobturator developed. Someone who has seen an X-ray or a pelvis skeleton will know that the front of the pelvis is made of two struts, so that we are not so heavy that we cannot actually stand up, and the obturator is that hole. The idea was to keep away from the bladder and therefore reduce bladder injuries, and indeed this did that.
Bladder injuries were reduced from 10% to 1%, so, again, everybody was patting themselves on the back. But what happens is the spikes—the trocars—used to put these things in are going through muscle and close to nerves, and are coming out in the groin; they are coming near the muscles that allow people to pull their thighs together. That is where a lot of the side effects and complications have come, and there was definitely a huge upswing and surge in these complications after the obturator tape became the common approach. We also had such slow recognition of what was happening. Many of us women in here, particularly us women of a certain age, will recognise that old story of women simply being dismissed, patted on the head and patronised.
An odd quirk of regulation is that the Federal Drug Administration’s regulation 510(k) allows any similar devices to pass through in a very simple fashion and they are not re-examined. Class I is low risk, and initially these tapes were all classed as class I, which means no research had to be done. They are now class III, which means a randomised controlled trial is required, and we see that Johnson & Johnson, and others, are withdrawing; they are stopping making these things because they would have to go back to carry out trials. The problem is that the tape and the trocars might have looked similar, but when the move was made from tension-free retropubic to a transobturator tape, we were talking about a totally different operation, and there was simply no evidence to show that this was either similar or better.
If something has been passed by the FDA, it tends to get passed in Europe, and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency tends also to accept it without doing anything else. The European CE mark is only a mark of the quality of production; it does not imply anything about research. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) mentioned, there is a plan to develop the EU medical devices regulation system from 2020, but, unfortunately, the UK will not be part of that, unless there is a specific negotiation.
The problems began to be recognised in 2012, because of the campaigners, their persistence and their speaking out. In 2014, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, advised all health boards in Scotland to suspend meshes until there was some degree of clarity. It might have been stimulated by that, but certainly at the same time the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration started to look at its products, immediately de-licensing a third, reviewing a third and, initially, keeping a third as standard. But last November it de-registered all prolapse meshes, so these materials are simply not available in Australia.
The Scottish independent review was set up from 2014 to 2017, and its advice was unequivocal: there should be no routine use of mesh for prolapse, and as regards incontinence, if mesh was being used, registration was made mandatory. There has been discussion about where this registration will occur. Obviously, the colleges have been developing a registration, but we need to know about everyone who had a mesh in. This could be done through scanning the barcode off the mesh and registering it in the notes—that is the obvious way to do it. Having had to review all the case sheets of breast reconstructions after the PIP— Poly Implant Prothèse—silicone implants scandal, I know that it is really important that if something is being left permanently in a patient, we know how to recall it and who had that done.
As has been mentioned, we had the NHS England review and a paper was produced last year, using hospital episode statistics, that showed a 9.8% complication rate at five years. Again, we can expect that to climb. The review published on Tuesday showed that about a third of the 72,000 patients who were treated for prolapse were treated by mesh; that is between 2008 and 2017, and we see a fall over time, so the rate might be higher during the earlier period between 2000 and 2008.
We have seen a 13% drop over that time in prolapse meshes, but, as I say, in prolapse they have utterly no benefit and therefore there can be only loss, so it is hard to justify why so many patients in England are still having prolapse meshes. Some 100,000 women have had mesh incontinence tapes, and this has decreased by 48%, meaning that the overall decrease in the use of mesh over that period is about 32% in England. Since the Scottish inquiry, the reduction in the use of mesh has been 94%—and that is continuing.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle mentioned Dr Wael Agur, whom I am lucky enough to have as our local gynaecologist. I have been able to meet him and get information with him. The only places that are using incontinence meshes are the two specialist units in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In Scotland, a consent process has been developed, which is now being looked at by the colleges so that it can be rolled out, and, obviously, we are talking about usage in tiny numbers here.
Even though registration is mandatory, none of the other health boards is doing this, so it is not expected that Scotland will have many patients registered. What Dr Wael Agur and other colleagues are using is a small piece of rectus sheath, which is the tough tissue we have in front of our muscles. Those who are lucky enough to have a six pack—I do not see many in here— will find that that is very strong tissue. [Interruption.] We do not ask anyone to show them, please. Only about 6 cm of this is required. So we are using the patient’s own tissue and we will be back to an autologous repair, where there might be complications, wound infections and failures, but we would not see this progressive problem.
So what went wrong? Not enough research was carried out and, categorically, there was not enough follow-up. The survey that was reported on Tuesday now gives NHS England a denominator of how many patients have had mesh, but I am sorry to say that just using hospital episode statistics does not give a numerator as to how many women have problems, so I suggest a survey of all those patients or a review is necessary, in order to know how many, even within the NHS, have got these problems.
In addition, as we have heard, there was poor information on which people could base their consent; as I say, the clinicians did not know, because no detailed trials were being done of these new techniques and certainly there was no decent audit. Women were being dismissed and patronised. The regulatory system was far too complacent, simply taking things from the FDA all the way to the MHRA and not looking at changes in technique. The audit was very poor, with a recent survey showing that only 27% of patients who had had meshes were registered.
Finally, the yellow card system failed, yet again. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned the other scandals associated with sodium valproate and Primodos. Unless patients are aware of the yellow card system and unless GPs and doctors have it literally in the front of their brains, people will not send a yellow card until they are sure that the drug or the mesh caused the problem. For any new drug, for any new technology that is being implanted, and for any baby born to a mother on medication, there should be a yellow card, because the whole point of the yellow card system is that someone centrally is able to notice. That is why we need more of these yellow cards. There is clearly a problem, so we need better registration and reporting, so that we do not have to have another similar debate in future.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for securing this important debate and for her passionate speech. Like me, she has been shocked and horrified by the stories we have heard from men and women who have had their lives turned upside down because of surgical mesh. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who spoke with such passion and knowledge. He was campaigning with the all-party group on surgical mesh implants long before I even came across it, and I am grateful for his contribution and continued leadership.
I thank all Members who have spoken in this excellent debate: the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady); the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis); my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya); the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster); and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke for the Scottish National party with such knowledge, and it was a privilege to be in the Chamber to hear her speech. I thank them all for their thoughtful contributions, and I thank their constituents who have allowed their experiences to be shared with us today. It has been distressing to hear their stories and I sympathise with anyone affected by surgical mesh.
Finally, I thank Kath Sansom, who leads the Sling the Mesh campaign, and who I know is watching from the Gallery, for all her hard work in uniting the women affected by vaginal mesh implants and raising awareness of the tragic impact that they have had on so many lives. I thank everyone who is part of that campaign for everything that they do to raise awareness and support women.
After the Westminster Hall debate in October last year, and the media coverage that followed, more women came forward as victims when they realised that the mesh was causing their additional health problems. I am very sorry to say that my 73-year-old mam was one of them. She likes to watch my debates and speeches, as do all our mams, I am sure. When she was at mine one Saturday, while I made lunch, I sat her down to watch some of the speeches that I had made that week. There she was with my iPad: I put on the Westminster Hall debate, it started to play, and I said, “I’m so pleased you haven’t had anything like this done.”
You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, over the past four to five years my mam has been back and forward to the doctors with loads of health issues, from IBS to constant urinary infections, and from stabbing pains in her groin to pain walking and trouble sleeping because of pain and twitching in her legs—and more. It has been never-ending. She said, “I’ve turned 70 and I’m falling to pieces.” She has had cameras everywhere, which is not always pleasant and can be very uncomfortable, but all to no avail. No diagnosis or solution has ever been found. With that background knowledge, the House can imagine my horror when she said, “Oh, no, I just had some tape put in to stop the leaking when I coughed and sneezed!” I had no idea that she had had that done.
As the hon. Member for Torbay said, sometimes women—even your mam—do not like to talk about these things. When I asked her why she had never mentioned it, she said, “Oh, it was quick—I was in and out on the same day. And you’re always so busy, so I just didn’t mention it.” It had not even occurred to her that there could be a connection between what she had been going through for the past four or five years and this procedure that she had had done five years earlier.
As the House can imagine, I went into panic mode, because although we are talking about mesh today, surgeons use many different names for it—tape, ribbon and sling are the more patient-friendly ones. I am also told that they now like to use the phrase “Don’t worry—it’s not the mesh that they talk about in the media.” Surgeons must be absolutely clear with their patients what treatment they are about to receive and address any concerns that they might have, instead of talking about the success of the majority or dismissing those concerns outright.
After the sudden realisation, all my mam’s symptoms over the years suddenly began to make sense and could be attributed directly to the mesh. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the help of the fabulous Kath Sansom, my mam is now armed with all the facts and arguments to take to her GP and surgeon. She has done that and is on the long road to getting reversal surgery, if that is the best option for her. She has also had to come to terms with the fact that she may never be the same again, with the associated guilt that she agreed to the procedure. She trusted the medical profession to do her no harm.
My mam is lucky at the moment, compared with some of the other cases we have heard about today, which she recognises. A Sling the Mesh survey found that more than 78% of patients have pain when walking and sitting; 69% of women have pain that prevented intercourse; more than 60% of patients suffer with anxiety and depression because of the mesh and the symptoms that it causes; and almost 54% suffer with nerve damage. I have seen the piles of medication and medical equipment that some women have to use on a daily basis to try to live a life with a bit of dignity. Before the mesh, these were fit, healthy and, in some cases, young women, as we have heard. Now they need assistance to do simple things such as tie their shoe laces, pick up their children, or even use the toilet. Some have lost their sex lives, their marriage or their job. This is a tragedy for these women and their families. The effects of mesh have been so unbearable that, I am sad to say, some women have tried to end their own lives. Innovative and effective treatments should not do this to patients, and the Government must not stand idly by while women suffer in pain like this. The Opposition continually urge NHS England and NICE to act immediately to update the guidance before 2019—as we have all said—and to suspend the use of vaginal mesh.
The Government’s “Retrospective Review for Vaginal Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence using Tape or Mesh”, published just two days ago, is a first step in understanding the sheer scale of the number of women affected by this scandal. Unfortunately, the effects of mesh are hidden within the document—it takes a bit of a numbers expert to be able to work their way through it. So hidden and complex is the review that, on Tuesday, the Minister in the other place announced that he was giving his expert a month to work it out. I will be waiting with bated breath for that analysis.
It is clear that the review fails to show up all the women who have been treated with mesh in the UK. It shows only the number of women treated in England on the NHS, meaning that patients treated in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and patients treated privately in England, were not included. The audit does not include the sheer number of women who have gone back and forward to their GP for pain relief or antibiotics but who have not yet been referred to a consultant, or even those women who have not yet even made the connection and considered that mesh could be the problem, as was the case with my mam. Why were those women missed out? What is the Minister doing to ensure that their concerns are heard and that they are counted in the numbers?
When the audit was announced, I called for a suspension of the use of mesh while it was carried out. As the hon. Members for Totnes and for Glasgow North West and others have mentioned in their contributions, medical devices do not undergo any clinical trials or rigorous evaluation in this country. If ever there were a case to prove that that needs to change, it is surgical mesh.
As I have said, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned, if this were a car, an aircraft or even a washing machine or a dryer that was malfunctioning and causing life-changing harm in 10% to 15% of cases, its use would be stopped and the product recalled immediately while the problem was investigated. It would not even need to be as high as that, or even the 1% to 3% that was referred to—just a handful of incidents triggers a recall.
The suspension did not happen, so will the Minister please tell the House in her response how many women have had a mesh implant while the audit took place? Does she know how many women since March 2017 have been treated with a mesh implant or had mesh removed, as the audit went up to only March 2017—a year ago? These newly mesh-implanted women may not have any symptoms now, or if they do they will not necessarily realise that the mesh is to blame, but they may do so in a few years’ time.
Since the Westminster Hall debate last year, the audit and the wider medicines and medical devices safety review, patients who have been treated with surgical mesh—not specifically vaginal mesh—have come to feel that their experiences and concerns are not being considered by the Government. Obviously, I include men in that category. The majority of hernia mesh operations are successful. However, complications can leave patients in chronic pain, which patients were not warned about.
According to NHS data, 10% of people who have had hernia mesh fitted go back to their clinician at some point after their surgery. The former surgeon Peter Jones says that the risks of using hernia mesh are so bad that he himself would not take the risk. Will the Minister respond to the concerns of patients who have been harmed by surgical mesh and elaborate specifically on what the Government are doing to review the harm caused by all surgical mesh—not just vaginal mesh?
Let me repeat my calls to the Government once again: the use of surgical mesh must be suspended and NICE must bring forward its review. A simple, quick and cheap operation has turned far too many patients’ lives upside down. We must stop playing Russian roulette with these patients’ lives. It really is time to sling the mesh.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this debate. She approached this issue with her characteristic passion and forthrightness and gave me a number of challenges—again. I am pleased that she acknowledged that, since we last debated this, there has been progress. It is in that spirit that we need to continue this dialogue not just to address the issues, but to make sure that we do the right thing by those women who have been harmed by the use of vaginal mesh.
Ultimately, the tragedy of this case is that women have put their trust in the medical establishment to look after them and to make them well, and they have come out with the most debilitating, life-changing injuries. In many cases, these were very young women. It is very clear from the clinical guidance on these products that they should not be used as a first intervention, and should be used only in very extreme cases. We are to be very concerned about the extent to which this has been adopted.
It is great that the evidence shows that the use of this product is less than it was. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) pointed out, there was a spike in the use of the product, and that use was not always appropriate. That highlights the need for proper understanding of the risk of any medicine or product, and underlines the need for very mature and sensible conversations between medical professionals and their patients so that people understand the risks of treatments, as opposed to understanding just the benefits. Most of all, it illustrates the need for informed consent on the part of the patient. I have been horrified in this debate to hear how many women did not understand the treatment that they were getting. That is clearly unacceptable.
In that spirit, I want to continue this dialogue. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) pointed out, women are often sent away and told that, “It’s women’s problems.” Women are often patted on the head by members of the medical establishment. None of us women in this place is a shrinking violet, but we have also fallen victim to that behaviour, which is just not acceptable. We need to do more to change the culture of our health service and the way in which medical professionals interact with women. If we do not, the outcome is exactly the experience to which those ladies who are sitting in the Public Gallery can attest. I am very grateful to them for sharing their experiences. Sharing our very intimate and distressing personal details is not the most comfortable thing in the world, but the work they have all done in sharing their experiences has raised awareness and put the issue on the agenda. It has also made us more vigilant about protecting our own health when we are faced with problems. I thank them all.
Although there may be some specific points on which we differ, it is clear that we all share a determination to address the issues that have been raised. Clearly, a number of women have experienced extreme suffering, and it is important that the NHS does its best to make life better for those women and gives them the treatment that they need. I say to Members that if there is any evidence that women are not getting the treatment that they should be getting following a complex mesh procedure, please raise that with me and bring it to my attention and I will take action accordingly.
Gordon Marsden
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is acknowledging the depth of disquiet, suffering and pain, but she will also be aware from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), and indeed from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who spoke from the Front Bench, that there have been persistent calls for NICE to speed up the process. I ask the Minister a very specific question: what conversations has she had with her officials and NICE as to why they cannot bring this forward? Is it a question of a lack of appropriate aggregate evidence; is it a question of their own internal priorities; or is it a question of resources?
Jackie Doyle-Price
It is actually an issue of rigorous process. We need to make sure that NICE guidance has clinical integrity. The guidance to which the hon. Gentleman refers comes at the end of a longer process of other guidance that is going through the system. None the less, that intelligence is shared throughout—it is an entirely consultative process. The issues that we need to settle are all part of the public debate. Essentially, the publication of the NICE guidance comes at the end of that. The important thing is that everyone knows the issues and that we are very clear about the context in which this is an appropriate treatment. The guidance is very clear: this treatment should not be offered as a routine first intervention.
Owen Smith
I am not sure that that answer is correct, in as much as we know that there is no new clinical evidence to be produced in this area; there are no outstanding trials. Therefore, there is no reasonable reason why NICE cannot bring forward that guidance, and it certainly does not make sense for it to wait another year.
Finally, was the Minister surprised when the chief medical officer, who was sitting next to the Secretary of State, said on Facebook Live that she thought that the rate of complication in respect of mesh was between 15% and 20%—a stark difference from all previous estimates by Ministers or officials?
Jackie Doyle-Price
Let me emphasise that it is the robustness of the process that is at issue here. The guidance will be published for consultation later this year, and completed next year. There is a robust process for doing so.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the CMO suggested that there was a 15% to 20% complication rate, but I understand that she has written to him explaining that she misquoted the statistics and that the situation is more complex. That is one reason why the retrospective audit is so important. We now have a body of evidence that we can properly analyse, and as has been mentioned, my noble Friend Lord O’Shaughnessy has tasked the CMO with properly analysing the audit published this week so that we might more quickly draw conclusions.
Owen Smith
That is very interesting. I do not believe I have received a letter from the chief medical officer explaining that she got the statistics wrong. May I press the Minister to make sure that when the CMO looks at the register she offers a proper narrative analysis of what the numbers mean? We still have contested analyses of whether they show a bigger problem than we thought or whether it is the same. I think it shows a much bigger problem, but we need to understand the numbers.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is crucial that we address the matter transparently—that is very much the spirit in which I want to take this forward.
Dr Julian Lewis
Before those interventions, the Minister said that if people are still not getting adequate treatment, it should be brought to her attention. As I mentioned, I have been contacted by constituents saying they felt trapped because the people who did the procedures were refusing to refer them elsewhere for a second opinion and for possible help from the very small number of people who specialise in the rectification and reversal of these procedures. What advice can she give my constituents about how to break out of this restriction on being referred to people in whom they can have more confidence?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s representations on behalf of his constituents, and they filled me with alarm, because we have given a clear indication on this point and have established 18 specialist centres to deal with the consequences of mesh. There is, therefore, no excuse for patients who require further intervention not being properly referred. Perhaps he and I could take this up offline to make sure his constituents get the support they deserve.
I want to put this in the context of our broader emphasis on patient safety. We have learned, through difficult experience, that there is never one measure or magic bullet to suddenly transform services for patients; it is about sensible dialogue between patients, clinicians and sometimes politicians—sometimes we can have a role in catalysing the debate. We all need to pull together to tackle all aspects of the issue. In some respects it is about the actual product—the vaginal mesh—but it is also about clinical practice and behaviour, as we have talked about. The most important thing, however, is the need to listen to patients, who, in this context, are of course women. We have to make sure that we listen to women when concerns are raised so that we can properly tackle those concerns as they arise. As I have said before, I am concerned about informed consent for patients, but the issues go much further, and generally we could do much to improve the performance of the NHS by placing a greater emphasis on that.
We need to consider the whole issue of clinical advice. We know that this product should not be routinely offered as a first intervention, yet clearly it is. I am horrified to hear of women in their 20s and 30s being treated with this product, when clearly it is not intended for them. It is obviously easy for me to make a superficial judgment on that without knowing about the particular cases, but on the face of it, it seems quite wrong.
The issue has been raised of what is an acceptable level of risk. I do not like to think about that in terms of percentages, because the acceptable level of risk will differ from patient to patient. If we are talking about some new mums, the level of risk clearly would not be outweighed by the benefits, but if we are looking at women suffering from horrendous conditions of incontinence, that is a very different debate. Again, we need to think about the broader issues. It all comes down to making sure that the guidance is properly applied and that clinicians who are recommending the use of mesh are properly making that assessment in discussion with their patients.
There has been a demand for a public inquiry. We have introduced the Cumberlege review, which is designed to make sure that we properly assess the interests of patients going forward. I know that many patients have felt that their views have been ignored. Baroness Cumberlege is very keen to hear directly from individual patients about their experience, and will be going round the country to do exactly that.
I could say much more, but I must conclude so that we can move on to the next debate. I will write to hon. Members, who I thank for contributing to the debate, to address some of their other points. We are determined to do our best for women who have been badly treated in having this procedure.
Emma Hardy
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate, and I welcome the continued dialogue between the all-party group and the Department of Health. It was interesting to hear for the first time that the Department recognises that it is not just the process but the product about which there are serious concerns. I also welcome what appears to be an admission that NICE is introducing draft guidelines this year—is that correct?
Emma Hardy
That is excellent. That is one of the things we called for. One thing that has come out more and more is that there needs to be informed consent. People need to know a lot more about the risks. All the risks need to be written down in front of someone in block capitals so that they know exactly what they are letting themselves in for.
I press again, as I did at the beginning of my speech, for all new mothers to be offered pelvic floor physiotherapy, as happens in France. As the Minister has just said, it is unacceptable that a new mother with a small, relatively minor inconvenience should be offered something that could result in permanent, life-changing disability. I urge the Minister to look into that as well.
I very much welcome the fact that we will have the draft NICE guidelines next year. As we have spent a lot of this debate talking about our mums and what they say to us, I will quote my mum. She always said, “Where there’s a will there’s a way”. If there is a way of bringing forward those NICE guidelines, let us make it happen, because if there is a determination across the House to make it happen, I am sure that the Department can find a way to do it and end this misery for so many women.
I end by thanking again all the fantastic women up there in the Gallery right now watching this debate. We are only talking about this now because of your bravery in coming forward and speaking out, and I thank each and every single one of you. We cannot undo the suffering you have experienced, but by speaking out and being so incredibly brave, you will stop women in the future going through what you have gone through. I and every Member who has spoken today thank you.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady and everybody who has joined us today. I hope that they have felt uplifted by the debate.
We now come, colleagues, to the Back-Bench motion on cancer treatment. [Interruption.] Apparently, before we move on I should put the question on the debate on surgical mesh. I thank the specialist Clerk for his help and for rescuing me. We will now be entirely orderly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House commends the recent announcement of a retrospective audit into surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence; notes that vaginal mesh has been banned in other jurisdictions such as New Zealand; further notes that NICE guidance recommends against the use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and that no NICE recommendations have been made for stress urinary incontinence; notes that Sheffield University recently announced the development of a new mesh material; and calls on the Government to suspend prolapse and incontinence mesh operations while the audit is being carried out, to bring forward the NICE guidelines for mesh in stress related urinary incontinence from 2019 to 2018, and to commit to a full public inquiry into mesh if the audit suggests that this is the best course of action.
Cancer Treatment
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Just before I ask the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) to open the debate, it is my honour, privilege and joy to welcome Baroness Jowell—Tessa Jowell—together with David, Matthew, Jess and others to the Under-Gallery, in what will be an extremely powerful and, I hope, constructive debate. Can I say to you, Tessa—and I say it on behalf, I am sure, of all colleagues—that I hope you will feel fortified and inspired by the warm embrace of parliamentary love which you are about to experience? It is now my pleasure to call Sarah Jones to open the debate.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House pays tribute to the work of Baroness Tessa Jowell in her campaign to help people with brain tumours to live better lives for longer; recognises the Government’s increased funding for research; and calls on the Government to increase the sharing of health data and promote greater use of adaptive clinical trials.
May I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, after what has been a very busy week, for being here today in the Chair? I know you have two interests here today. One, obviously, is your friendship with Tessa, but there is also your interest in brain tumours, having set up the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours. We are all extremely grateful that you are here.
I also thank the co-sponsors of the debate, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—unfortunately, she cannot be here today—and all the Members who helped us secure the debate. I also thank all those who have gone before us in the all-party parliamentary group—people who have spoken many times in this place with greater knowledge than I on brain tumours and cancers. I also thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), for being here today—it means a lot to us all.
This is a really important debate about cancer. My father died of cancer—of mesothelioma—last June, three days after I was elected to this place. No one here is not touched by cancer. However, I want to start by talking about Tessa and to tell Members a story about her.
To say that Tessa is determined in the face of adversity is a major understatement. In early 2001, she had a thought: that we should bid for the Olympic and Paralympic games. Now, if hon. Members remember, we had had the Millennium Dome, we had had Wembley stadium, we were 10th, I think, in the medals table in 2000, and we had been even worse the time before. We had quite a low opinion of ourselves in terms of our ability to construct and in terms of sport.
However, Tessa read everything there was to read, and she convinced herself that it was a good idea. She then set about convincing everybody else. She was faced by a Cabinet and a public who had no faith in this idea at all. She went round every single member of the Cabinet, one by one, and personally persuaded them that this was a good idea. She turned the entire Cabinet to her view.
She then threw herself into the bid, making sure that every single diaspora community and every sports group felt that this was exactly what we should be doing. She went to the Mongolians’ national day archery demonstration; she went to the Indian craft and shooting competition. She supported community groups all over the country. She would go and talk to a group of children about how they would directly benefit, and then she would dash across the country and deliver a wordy lecture to a load of economists about the evidence base for sporting-led regeneration.
In the midst of this mayhem, she would go on holiday, but not like the rest of us would go on holiday. She would take herself off to Mumbai, where she volunteered for a charity that taught sport and life skills to children who were homeless in the slums of Mumbai. She was offered a hotel room, but she slept in a tent. Two weeks later, she would come back, after spending every day in the boiling heat helping other people, and she would feel refreshed and do round 2 of the Olympics, and we all remember what an absolutely glorious time that was, how proud of our country we were and what an achievement it was.
Now, Tessa has a new course, which has been brought about by her personal experience of a brain tumour. She has thrown herself into the campaign for people to live longer lives with cancer with exactly the same relentless optimism and total bloody doggedness as she did with the Olympics. When faced with this woman who walks through walls, never gives up and always gets what she wants, we could almost feel sorry for cancer.
Last May, Tessa was diagnosed with a high-grade brain tumour, called GBM, or glioblastoma. This type of cancer, like many brain cancers, is very aggressive and very difficult to treat. Life expectancy for patients is very poor and has not improved in decades. Some 60% of people diagnosed will die within one year, and yet only 2% of the funding for research goes to study brain tumours.
In January, Tessa led a very moving debate in the House of Lords, which I am sure we all watched. She talked bravely and openly about the reality of life with a brain tumour, but she talked of hope; she talked of hope for cancer patients across the world—hope that the revolution we need is close at hand, and hope that we can live well together with cancer. I am sure that that debate had a big impact on us all—people across the country and colleagues across both sides of the House. Today’s motion recognises the tireless work that Tessa has done on this so far. It calls on the Government to improve the use of patient data to drive forward medical advances, and to promote greater use of adaptive clinical trials.
There are lots of reasons for the absence of breakthroughs in brain cancer treatment. Of course, it is partly down to resources but, as Tessa has said, it is not just about money. We need to radically transform the way in which we develop new treatments, two aspects of which I want to mention today: clinical trials and data sharing.
There is a long history of failure in traditional clinical trials for brain tumours and no vital drugs have been developed for 50 years. The proportion of brain cancer patients taking part in a clinical trial is less than half the average across all cancers. Some 97% of brain cancer patients want to share their data to help to accelerate research, yet we still do not have a proper national brain tumour registry.
After her Lords debate, Tessa led an expert roundtable that brought together senior figures from the Government, NHS, industry and research. It was a powerful meeting that set out the key priorities and the innovations that we need. The event helped to secure some really important wins for brain tumour patients, including commitments from NHS England to include people who had been treated for brain cancer in the roll-out of the cancer quality of life metric. Public Health England agreed to work with brain tumour charities to explore greater access to data. The event also coincided with the announcement of £45 million of research funding into brain tumours, supported by both Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health. It is a testament to Tessa that she can invoke such love and respect from colleagues of all sides and still be at the forefront of this process. Only this week she was in the Department of Health at the first meeting of the steering group that is looking into this, chaired by Lord O’Shaughnessy. But there is still a long way to go.
The Government are currently considering a raft of recommendations around these issues. I have two specific asks. First, this situation can only change through a global community working together collaboratively. This international movement exists; there are people who want to do this. We just need the structures in place and the barriers removed.
Secondly, we need a clear and conscious shift to new, more innovative models of treatment and care. We need a culture of research within the NHS, with wider access to adaptive clinical trials. The Cambridge model at Addenbrooke’s Hospital has seen patient involvement in research grow to 80%. That should not be the exception; it should be the norm.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent and remarkable speech. As I cannot stay for the whole debate, I hope that I may—with the indulgence of the Chair—make a brief intervention to say that Tessa Jowell is an inspiration to us all. On behalf of the shadow Cabinet, I pay tribute to her today. I know that all Members of the House find her bravery extraordinary. She has achieved so much, and we will work constructively with the Government to implement many of the recommendations that my hon. Friend is outlining.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for those lovely words and for the commitment to all work together, as, of course, we must.
Before I draw my speech to a close, I want to mention one more person by name. Jack Lloyd is 10 and lives in New Addington, in my constituency of Croydon Central. Jack has a brain tumour that is inoperable. His tumour was initially treated successfully but, sadly, another developed. Jack and his parents are facing the worst horror imaginable. He was only diagnosed after his mother, Claire, typed “child with persistent vomiting” into Google, and the HeadSmart campaign run by the Brain Tumour Charity came up. Claire told me that she did not for one second think that having a brain tumour was even a possibility for children; it was not something that she had come across before. In fact, brain tumours are the single biggest cause of cancer death among children. Some 7,000 children and young people are currently living with the disease. Jack’s experience is not unique. Almost half of patients with brain tumours are diagnosed by emergency admission, compared with only 10% of cancers overall.
Jack and his family are strong, and they are doing everything they can to give him the best possible time in the time that they have. He was a mascot for Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park in March. Claire has other surprises planned, but I do not want to say what they are in case Jack is listening. Jack’s family have worked with the Brain Tumour Charity to spread the message that tumours exist; that people need to know more; and that we need to improve funding, data sharing, and developing new treatments. Claire’s message to this place is that her son cannot die in vain. That is a powerful call to action—and one that I know we will all hear.
It is knowing Tessa, having worked for her on the Olympics and since being her friend—she helped me get to this place and gave me massive support—that brought me to the issue we are debating today. There is something uniquely pervasive about cancer. But perhaps it is precisely because it is so pervasive that there is hope, because the battle is personal to so many people. That is why I am confident that, with the good beginning that the Government have made, real progress will be made today and beyond.
I know that the debate we are about to have will be difficult. People will be talking about their personal experience and the lives of their constituents. I know the debate will be comradely, because that is what Tessa would want—she always believes the best in people and never assumes the worst. I know that some of what we say will be hard. This will be an emotional debate, but one rooted in determination: for Tessa; for my dad; for Jack.
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the House to debate these important issues this afternoon. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who introduced the debate in such a powerful and effective way.
I do not think that anyone who watched Baroness Tessa Jowell’s speech could have been anything but moved by her powerful and poignant words. I know it moved me, having got to know, like and respect Tessa over many years for her work in Government and in the House, and for the way she is able to bring people together from across politics with a very constructive, focused and tenacious approach just to get things done.
The timing of Tessa’s speech also touched a particular chord with me, coming as it did just a week or so after my own surgery to remove a tumour from my lung. It was a brave, humbling and inspiring speech in equal measure, with her very personal description of her brain tumour and the impact it has had on her, her call to action to secure more funding for brain tumour research, and her stressing the need for more effective clinical trials and the joining up of analysis and data.
But fundamentally, what shone through in Tessa’s words was a profound message of hope—hope for the future; hope in the face of her own physical adversity—and her unstinting passion to secure positive change for the benefit of others. So many debates in this House or in the Lords, while passionate and important, can sometimes appear sterile, perhaps a little arcane, with discussions of statistics, policy or implementation of points of law. Tessa’s speech cut through all that to focus on the human condition: the life well led, what gives it meaning and purpose, and the overriding power of human kindness, compassion and love.
Tessa’s campaign has already made a difference. I warmly welcome the positive response from the Government by the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and Members across Government to make change happen.
James Brokenshire
Perhaps I can give way to the Health Secretary on that point.
Mr Hunt
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I wonder whether, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, I could follow the shadow Health Secretary in commending Tessa’s campaigning. Most people come to this place hoping to leave a legacy, but she has left not just one legacy, but two—her amazing achievements with London 2012 and her amazing campaigning on cancer. It is our privilege to take part in this debate and our duty to act on what she says.
James Brokenshire
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining what can and will come out of this debate, which is continued momentum and a sense of purpose to bring about real change. Like the debate in the House of Lords, today’s debate should be a day not for political difference, but for how, together, we can all play our part in securing positive change to ensure that we use the best science to help beat cancer, and to offer the best support to those living with or beyond the disease.
After nearly eight years as the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, this is my first opportunity to address the House from the Back Benches. While this is most certainly not a maiden speech, I hope colleagues will understand if I place some of my comments in a very local context. A few weeks ago, I was contacted by Lisa and Matt Taylor, the parents of young Olivia Taylor. In January, when Olivia was 17 months old, she was diagnosed with a large slow-growing glioma tumour, which is located at the centre of her brain. By February, Olivia had lost her sight and many other cognitive functions.
Olivia is no longer able to know whether it is night or day, impacting on sleeping patterns not just for her, but for the rest of the family. Because of its location, sadly the tumour is inoperable, and Olivia is receiving chemotherapy to keep the tumour stable and to help retain as much of her quality of life as possible. She is a very brave little girl and clearly surrounded by so much love.
As a parent, I find that a heart-breaking story, and the family face an incredible strain in meeting Olivia’s immediate needs and those that lie ahead. Despite all this, I have been struck by their hugely positive outlook in ensuring that Olivia has happy memories and that she has access to all the right support. They have launched a campaign with the hashtag #KeepOliviaSmiling to help to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of brain tumours in children and the need for early diagnosis.
Brain tumours are the biggest cause of preventable or treatable blindness in children and the family believe that if the signs of Olivia’s tumour had been spotted sooner, her sight might have been saved. The campaign is also intended to help raise funds to support future treatment for Olivia, which might not be available in the UK. The family have highlighted to me the need for better join-up between hospitals on available treatments, accessibility to international trials and the need for greater research in childhood brain tumours, which can develop in different ways from adult tumours.
I warmly welcome the additional £45 million investment in brain tumour research, which has been committed by the Government in conjunction with Cancer Research UK. I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister will be able to commit to ensuring that part of that funding is used to advance our understanding of, and deliver new treatments specifically for, brain tumours in children. Making a difference in individual cases such as Olivia’s is precisely what today’s debate is all about. I hope that, in some way, today we too can help to keep Olivia smiling.
There is no doubt that the science and analysis of cancer are advancing rapidly. Increasing amounts of patient data are being generated, as well as much greater recognition of the ways cancer develops and the individual mutations that can cause one tumour to behave in a completely different way from another. The challenge, as we heard from the hon. Member for Croydon Central, is co-ordinating the data in a consistent way that leads to more effective treatments and therapies.
One example of that is genetic analysis to help predict a cancer’s evolutionary path. I commend Cancer Research UK for its support of the innovative and significant work to examine the genetic make-up of individual tumours. I recently gave permission for a sample of my own tumour to form part of this molecular research. I hope that in some small way that might add to our understanding of the disease.
Such work is clearly leading to much clearer analysis not just of the nature of individual cancers, but of treatments and immunotherapies that are more likely to be effective for the patient. Rather than talking generally about cancer in a particular organ, we are increasingly able to talk about the nature of a specific tumour for that individual. That is a potential game changer, but it also raises new challenges and potential restrictions that must be overcome if we are to make the necessary progress.
I believe that the UK can be a world leader in this new era of precision medicine, driving forward innovative research to deliver new treatment options, but that will take time, when time for many is a precious commodity. That is why the use of adaptive clinical trials remains important. Yes, there are existing routes for new drug treatments to be made available, such as the early access to medicines scheme, and the cancer drugs fund, but we should be prepared to be more radical.
I pay tribute to the work of the incredible people in our NHS who deliver the care and compassion that Tessa Jowell rightly highlighted. They are amazing, and having received significant NHS treatment and support over recent months, I know just how special they are. I also want to recognise the huge impact that charities such as Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Cancer Support, the Brain Tumour Charity, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation have on the lives of thousands of people.
We need to do more as part of the broader cancer strategy, and I will return to a number of topics on another occasion, but we should be positive about what we can achieve, the difference that can be made and the outcomes that can be secured if we work together. In connection with that, some of Tessa Jowell’s own words from her speech in the House of Lords bear repeating:
“I hope that this debate will give hope to other cancer patients like me, so that we can live well together with cancer—not just dying of it—all of us, for longer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
That inspiring message is one that we should all take to heart.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it time. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who so powerfully shared his own experience of cancer and cancer treatment.
I pay tribute to my friend and predecessor as MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, Baroness Tessa Jowell of Brixton, who has inspired this debate. When I was selected as the Labour party candidate for the 2015 election after Tessa had announced that she was stepping down, four words seemed to come instantly to everyone’s lips as I went around the constituency speaking to people: “big shoes to fill”. They certainly were.
As a constituency MP, Tessa helped and supported countless individuals and families facing the most difficult of circumstances with compassion and tenacity. My strong memory of my first experiences of doorstep campaigning in the constituency is of how many people offered, unprompted, their gratitude that Tessa had helped them, often going above and beyond the call of duty. More than that, Tessa worked to deliver lasting change for our communities in Dulwich and West Norwood, by campaigning to secure investment to deliver not one, not two, but five brilliant new schools in the constituency. As a Labour Minister, she established the Sure Start programme, which was the fruit of her lifelong passion for supporting parents and babies to address disadvantage early and to enable every child to thrive. Sure Start centres made a difference across the country, including in Dulwich and West Norwood, where they are still highly valued by parents and carers. Through sheer inspirational determination, Tessa also delivered the greatest celebration of London and Londoners that we have ever known—the 2012 Olympics.
Across everything she did as our MP, Tessa established a clear and principled way of doing politics, based on listening to, engaging with and responding to the concerns of local residents; identifying and working on the issues that matter to all of us and that bring people together; using the currency of personal stories, compassion and kindness rather than trading in statistics and cheap political shots; and, most of all, seeking to empower people and to tackle disadvantage and adversity head-on. It is therefore no surprise to Tessa’s many friends in Parliament, in Dulwich and West Norwood, across London and beyond that she is now using the very difficult personal circumstances of her brain tumour diagnosis to work to make a difference for other people in the same circumstances. It is no surprise, but it is remarkable in a situation where many of us would be focused only on our immediate loved ones, and it is extremely brave.
My own family knows the pain of brain tumour diagnosis. In 1983, at the age of 66, just a year after he had retired from his career as a bus driver and spent his life savings on a small house with an indoor toilet and a garden where he could grow his beloved dahlias, my grandfather George Hayes died from a brain tumour. Seven years later, in a situation so statistically rare that doctors had to be persuaded to take her symptoms seriously, my grandmother, George’s wife Olive, also passed away from a brain tumour, at the age of 71. We know as a family the fear and anxiety that such a serious diagnosis brings, the hopelessness of finding that there is very little that can be done, and the pain of watching loved ones deteriorate and lose capacity at the hands of such a cruel disease.
My first thought when I learned the horrible news of Tessa’s diagnosis was of grandparents George and Olive, and my second thought was that the treatment and prognosis for brain tumours must be much better now than it was then. I looked up the statistics, and was shocked to find that, although brain tumour survival rates have doubled since the 1970s, it is only from 6% to 14% compared with a 10-year survival rate of 50% across all types of cancer in the UK. Brain tumours kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, yet just 1% of the national spend on cancer research has been allocated to brain tumour research. As a consequence of this lack of funding, there is a shortage of drugs, and patient participation in clinical trials for brain tumour patients is extremely low—just 6.4% of adults compared with 61.4% for leukaemia. The survival rates for brain tumour patients after one year are less than 40%; after five years, less than 20%; and after 10 years, just 14%. Time is short for patients and their families.
Tessa has rightly called for more funding for research into treating brain tumours, but she has importantly also called for a more flexible approach to participation in adaptive trials. Such trials allow patients who have a diagnosis that without a breakthrough treatment will certainly be terminal to add new drugs to their treatment plan, or to switch between new medications in a trial rather than having to wait sequentially for each trial to conclude. They are really important. It is also important that better ways are found to share the data from brain tumour patients in order that it can be used for research. This is what most brain tumour patients want, and it is what most members of the public would want, faced with an illness that cannot be cured. Our experience and our data should be used to try to improve the prognosis for others in future.
Tessa has also called for improvements in the way that treatment is provided to brain tumour patients and the wider environment of care. There is still too much variation across the country in diagnosis, referral-to-treatment times, access to specialists and clinical trials, and palliative care for those who need it. We have in this country exemplary services in all of these areas, but they are not available to every patient. That must change. Everyone with brain tumour symptoms should be diagnosed as early as possible; be referred to a specialist centre with access to the most up-to-date surgical techniques and drug therapies; and have access to the very best support services, including counselling as well as physio and occupational therapy. If and when the time sadly comes, everyone should have access to the gold standard of palliative care, which exists in some parts of the country but which is currently not available everywhere.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s engagement with Tessa’s campaign for better research, access to clinical trials, treatment and care, along with the work of the brain tumour Task And Finish Group, Brain Tumour Research and others, but we must make change happen. It is our commitment, Tessa, and my promise on behalf of all those who love you in Dulwich and West Norwood that, collectively, we will take on your campaign, and that your vision of people living better lives for longer with cancer, and with brain tumours in particular, will become a reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. It may have to be reduced, but we will start with a limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes each. I call George Freeman.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)? She spoke with great passion and authority.
Thirty years ago this month, my father developed a cough and two months later he was dead from throat cancer. Being a man of that generation and age, he had never taken his health too seriously. He had never been for a check-up and had never received the care and treatment that would now follow, so what I say today is partly for dad. Eighteen months ago, I heard from a childhood friend of mine, Charlie Williams, that he had been diagnosed with the same form of brain tumour that Tessa has. Last week, Charlie posted on Facebook that he did not expect to see the next year out, so this is for Charlie.
I want to start by paying tribute to you, Tessa, for what you said in that remarkable speech. You spoke for us all, and to us all, and you spoke to the patients of this country not only with your condition, but with every other form of cancer—the patients I had a career working with who want us to make a difference for them. They want warm words, yes, and there were no words warmer than yours, Tessa, but they want us to turn the warm words into action. I believe that is the spirit in which we gather in this Chamber today, so this speech, Tessa, is for you.
Having come to this House after a career in medical research, it was my great privilege to be asked to lead, on behalf of the Government, a brain tumour research debate in Westminster Hall two years ago. I say this without a shred of criticism of my officials, who were simply doing their job, but the speech that I was given to read out said, as diligent speeches written by officials so often do, “There is no problem here. Move along. Everything is in good shape. Money is limited.” I read it with great respect, but I also listened to my colleagues with great respect, because unlike officials, we are sent to represent the people who put us here. As Tessa spoke for us all, I think it is our duty to speak always for the people who send us here.
I surprised my officials that day by announcing, as Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, that we would indeed create a taskforce to look into brain tumour research, never thinking that 18 months later my great friend the Secretary of State would announce £45 million of extra funding, in addition to the extra funding that he has recently announced on prostate cancer. That is a sign that, if we listen and speak on behalf of the people who put us here, we can make a difference, which is what Tessa wants us to do on her behalf and on behalf of all those people who send us here and the many patients around the country who are more impatient than anybody.
As you and patient colleagues know, Mr Speaker, I had a career in medical research. I want to highlight three important parts of this debate, the first of which is the new models of research that are coming—I was involved in my professional career in developing them. Secondly, I want to highlight the importance of patient voice in that model, and thirdly the importance of bold reforms to accelerate access to new treatments for our NHS patients.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) referred to precision medicine. The truth is that the life sciences sector that I joined 25 years ago is undergoing a profound transformation. The sector that I learned about was basically in the business of making blockbuster medicines that work for everybody. It would start with a theoretical drug target and, after 15 years, $2 billion on average and an 80% failure rate, drugs would be developed and eventually brought through regulation to the all-too-patient patients who were waiting for the approval.
In the new model, based on the genomic information that we have and phenotypic hospital records, we are able to look at a population and know which are likely to respond to the drug and which are not. We can start with the patients that we know are likely either to respond or to receive the disease, which means that we can start with the patient. With patient consent, we are able to start with their tissues, their genetics and their hospital records, and we are able not to end with a patient waiting patiently for the system to authorise a medicine, but with patients volunteering up-front to be part of that research.
It has been my privilege in my professional as well as my political career to work with inspired NHS clinicians around the country who have been leading this model. I pay tribute to the work of Cancer Research UK as an organisation, but also to Harpal Kumar, whose leadership of that organisation has been transformational.
We should be inspired by the fact that breast cancer is now 95% curable. We are within living, touching distance of cancer being a preventable disease or a treatable disease. More than 800,000 people are now living and working with cancer: it is not the death sentence that is used to be. We are in the midst of the most phenomenal revolution led by cancer. We should applaud those involved and learn the lessons of how they have managed to do it, largely through genomics and informatics.
I will share with the House a story that illustrates where the value in the new model lies. During my last project before I came to Parliament, I was working with an NHS clinician who, at the end of the meeting, pointed to a shelf in his office and asked me, “Do you think there is any value in that?” I said, “What is it?” He said, “It is all the data from a £25 million study of 250,000 women at risk of gynaecological cancer, funded by the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.” I said, “What have you got?” He said, “All the blood samples, all the genetic samples, and their patient records.” “That should be the Ageing Biomarker company,” I said. “We should form a company around that asset, because it will help us to identify ageing biomarkers.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
May I place on record at this point the work that my hon. Friend has done to get us to this point? He is very modest in not saying too much about it himself—although he mentioned the Westminster Hall debate and the way in which he went out on a limb in response to it—but his understanding of the business and this fight has taken us a long way towards where we are today. I hope he can now conclude his speech as he needs to.
George Freeman
That is very kind. I take the hint from my hon. Friend.
The assets that we have in our health system are phenomenal assets to drive this research model, and I think it is our challenge to release them, but in order to do so, we need patient consent. However interventionist we are as Ministers, we as a system will not and cannot release data on tissues and genetics without patient voice. This research model requires us to empower patients and the charities that speak to and for them. I would like us to think about setting up disease portals in which patients can slide the consent bar on their phones, share their records, and help the charities to drive research.
Finally, we need to accelerate the uptake of innovative medicines in the system, which is what the accelerated access reform that I put together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was all about. I dream of—I think we are within touching distance—a model in this country enabling the NHS to use its genomics and data to drive research. If we reform NICE to drive accelerated access, we give Tessa and the people for whom she spoke the legacy that they really want. We will make this country the leader not just of research, but of accelerated uptake of new treatments.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) on securing this important debate, and on making what I thought was a remarkable speech. I remember her telling me, days after her election, about the loss of her father. It was such a keenly felt loss, but I know how proud he must have felt to see his daughter enter this place—I think he hung on to see that happen. Had he heard her speech—and perhaps he did—I think that it would justify every ounce of his pride in her.
I will start by paying tribute to Tessa Jowell, if I may. She was one of the Members of Parliament representing the London borough of Lambeth when I was first leader of the opposition and then leader of the council. She was a fantastic, supportive local MP. Despite her serious, significant roles in Government, she was always available to talk to me about my role and the community that we both cherished and loved and for which we wanted to do our best. She became my mentor, and she became my friend.
Tessa was always thinking about how we could do more to help people, particularly the most vulnerable. We worked together to open schools and Sure Start centres. I particularly remember that in the mid-noughties, when there was that terrible spike in violent youth crime and knife crime—similar to what we are seeing now—in Tessa’s beloved Brixton, where she had started her career as a social worker, she took me to see a community-led project called Exit on the Moorlands estate, one of the most deprived inner-city estates in the country, where there was a horrifically high level of youth engagement in violence. Young people knew by name others who had been killed, including friends.
Tessa took me to see that project, which had been set up by the community. It was supported by youth workers and the police, but with the community in charge, and it was making a dramatic difference to the life chances of those young people by getting them out of danger—getting them out of gangs and steering them back on to a safer path that was giving them back the future that should have been theirs as a birthright. Tessa took me to see that project not just because she wanted the council’s support for it, but because she was teaching me an important lesson: it was not my job as a politician to find the answers for people; it was my job as a politician to help people find the answers for themselves, because they would be better answers. I have brought that lesson with me into Parliament; like many of us, I would not be here if it were not for Tessa, and Tessa taught me that people-based politics.
That same compassion, empathy and drive to support and help people is what has led Tessa to turn this great personal challenge in her own life today into a way to bring about change to help others. For that reason, as well as many others, I am very proud to stand here today and support Tessa’s campaign.
As we have been hearing, brain tumour research is underfunded and undervalued compared with other types of cancer research, despite the fact that it kills more people under the age of 40 than any other type of cancer and is the biggest killer of children of any kind of cancer. So we need to match the progress made in survival rates for other forms of cancer, such as leukaemia and breast cancer, by focusing much more on brain tumour cancer and what we can do as a country and a society to help people who find themselves living with that form of cancer.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
May I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the courage and bravery of our friend, Baroness Tessa Jowell, and particularly her significant decision to make her medical data available? Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the low level of participation in clinical trials, if we are to achieve much better results for patients, the Government and all of us must do much more to encourage participation in these trials in all of our local areas and in our national politics?
Mr Reed
I thank my right hon. Friend for that well-timed intervention. We absolutely need to boost participation in clinical trials. Only 6.4% of adults with this particular form of cancer take part in those trials, whereas over 61% of people with leukaemia participate, so there is a clear need for a major increase in the numbers participating in these trials if we are to get the data we need to learn. I join my right hon. Friend, too, in congratulating Baroness Jowell on her historic decision to become the first patient to consent to share her data fully and openly, in order to speed up the discovery of new cures and ways to help other people; she is an example to so many people in so many ways, but here again we need to learn from Tessa’s example, because that is how we will help to find a cure for this terrible form of cancer.
I say to Ministers, who will be responsible for regulation as well as funding, that it is important that regulation is not drawn so tightly that it does not allow for innovation and for new treatments to be developed. We must be open to doing things in different ways and to learning from failure as well as success; we cannot regulate against failure, but we can always learn from it so that we can improve.
We must increase the funding going into the kind of research that will find a cure for this form of cancer and put it on a par with other, perhaps more high-profile, forms of cancer that have attracted levels of funding that are making a bigger difference. In that respect, I put my name on record in welcoming and congratulating the Government on the increase in funding of £45 million —I believe that is the figure—announced since the very moving debate, which many of us attended in the House of Lords, led by Tessa Jowell.
Tessa has been a fighter all her life and now she is in the fight of her life, but how typical it is that she has turned it into a fight to allow others to live well, live better and live longer. Every one of us in this Chamber, and many others beyond, are proud to stand with Tessa today. I would like to say this to her, if I may: Tessa, you have all our love and all our respect. Please keep going and keep being the inspiration to all of us that you have always been.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
In the short time that I have to speak in this debate, I should like to focus on two areas. I want to talk about the important progress that needs to be made in the drive to fight prostate cancer and also, briefly, about the need for more attention to be given to the link between alcohol consumption and several cancers. First, let me say that I appreciate the fact that the Government are committed to improving the cancer services offered by the NHS, and to making the UK a world leader in cancer research, diagnosis, treatment and care. Many innovations have been introduced, including the cancer drugs fund and the implementation of the independent cancer taskforce’s strategy. Cancer survival rates are now at a record high, and our access to the world’s leading cancer drugs continues to improve. However, there is always more to do, and that is certainly the case with regard to prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK. It affects one in 10 men, so barely a family in the land will be unaffected. Indeed, my own grandfather died of it. More than 40,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2016, and just over 10,000 men die of it each year. It is relatively rare in men under 50, but it gets more common as men get older, and the average age of diagnosis is between 70 and 74, which is often too late. It has been recognised that earlier diagnosis is the key. The Prime Minister and Health Ministers have considered what more can be done on prostate cancer, and they are looking at a range of options for further activity and taking expert advice. It is clear that the strongest chance of health gain lies in more research—particularly research that focuses on early diagnosis—together with innovative new treatments and care for men with prostate cancer.
I am pleased that, just a few days ago, the Prime Minister announced a very welcome £75 million plan to launch new research into prostate cancer. This will build on the already strong portfolio of prostate cancer research being done, and on the considerable investment that is already being put in. I know that the Department of Health and Social Care works closely with Cancer Research UK, Prostate Cancer UK, the Medical Research Council and others via the National Cancer Research Institute, which is a strategic partnership of the major UK funders of cancer research, and that the spending by that partnership on prostate cancer increased from £17 million in 2011-12 to £26 million in 2015-16.
As I say, more needs to be done, and the Government have indeed announced that substantially more will be done to help the thousands of men affected by this disease every year get treated earlier and faster. More than 40,000 patients will be recruited into prostate cancer studies over the next five years. Those studies will include trial testing, keyhole surgery, different types of radiotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy. Other studies are seeking to identify predisposing hereditary genes, which could help to identify men at high risk, and this will include focusing on men with a family history of prostate cancer and also on black men, one in four of whom will develop the disease. Work will continue on supportive interventions, including exercise and dietary advice, and on the one-stop cancer shops being piloted in 10 areas to catch cancer early and speed up diagnosis, particularly for those suffering with less obvious symptoms. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s announcement that these plans will refocus the Government’s efforts to develop new treatments in this field.
I now want to touch on the link between alcohol and cancer. Over recent years the Government have exhibited admirable leadership by introducing a range of tobacco control legislation, helping people to reduce smoking, and they are now doing similar work to tackle obesity. Those are both high cancer triggers, and I applaud the Government for that work. Perhaps less recognised is the fact that alcohol can also be a cause of cancer.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm, I believe that this issue needs more attention from the Government, in the same way as they have looked at smoking and obesity. Indeed, consuming too much alcohol can increase the risk of at least seven types of cancer: bowel; breast; laryngeal, or cancer of the voicebox; liver; mouth; oesophageal, or cancer of the foodpipe; and pharyngeal, or cancer of the upper throat. Without being conscious about how much we drink, there is a risk that many people are drinking in a way that causes those cancers and that is preventable.
I ask the Government to do more to encourage people to drink responsibly to reduce cancer risks, as well as many other health risks. One way would be for the Government to help people better understand what 14 units a week, the amount in the chief medical officer’s guidelines, really means. I also ask the Government to meet me and the all-party group to discuss improving the labelling of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks. That would do much to help change habits, promote responsible drinking and prevent cancer and other health risks that can come from drinking even slightly above the chief medical officer’s guidelines.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for being present in the Chamber today. I know that you take the Chair most Thursdays, but I choose to interpret your presence today as a testament to Tessa. He is not in his place at the moment, but it is worth recognising that the Secretary of State was present not just during today’s debate but in the debate in the Lords. That was recognised by many of us and very much appreciated.
I want to start by talking about my mum, Joanna Kyle, later Murrell. In 2011, my mum presented to doctors with severe back pain, for which she was given medication but no further tests. In the 18 months that followed that visit, she went to doctors and clinicians and to hospital no more than a dozen times with the back pain, which never went away and only got worse. She was sent for numerous tests on her back, but on her final visit to the GP, when her husband said, “Please run more tests because the pain is not going away,” the GP simply replied, “Why on earth would I do that?” A week later, my mum collapsed. She was taken to hospital and diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. Within a month, she had died. Her mother had lung cancer, my mum had been a smoker earlier in her life—one would have thought that those were the sort of things that would have been picked up much earlier.
At the point at which my mum was diagnosed, she had only a 21% chance of living a year. If she had been diagnosed at the point at which she first presented to the doctors, in all statistical likelihood she would have seen me, her son, enter the House of Commons. There would have been a very good chance that she would have been here today or, most likely, outside enjoying the weather at her house in Devon.
My mum was not a complainer. She did not push herself forward, and she did not complain, thrust or make sure she got all the attention she needed. This is a good link from my mum to Tessa. Many people who do not know the relationship I have with Tessa might not see the link between my mother and Tessa, but for me it seems very logical. Tessa has always played a very strong and maternal role in my life, always—always—pushing me forward. For me, the link is an easy one. Tessa, too, is not a complainer, but my God she is a doer. She has always got things done and it is easy to pay tribute to her not just for her stellar career and achieving the Olympics but for her wonderful family. These debates in Parliament are the best testament to her, because amid the anguish of living with cancer, Tessa’s first instinct is to make life better for others.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although we pay tribute to the incredible bravery and determination of Baroness Tessa Jowell, we also need to pay tribute to the amazing work of Cancer Research UK, which has an impact not just in our country but around the world?
Peter Kyle
Of course I do. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Tessa, too, has been linking with many organisations, bringing them together and focusing attention on them but, just because that is so typically Tessa, it does not make it any less remarkable.
For brain cancer to be tackled, three things must happen. We need to sort out funding, innovation and the use of data, and I will speak about the data. The working group set up by the Department of Health and Social Care said that brain tumour patients would like
“their health data to be used for research to speed up development of new treatments. Regulators should respect these wishes.”
Lord Freyberg said in the debate in the other place that Britain has a “globally unique research asset” in the NHS. We have cradle-to-grave records covering millions of people, and examples from those records could revolutionise care and research. Those records need to be much better utilised.
That is the data at the very top, but we now see in America how Apple is revolutionising the use of health data down to the individual. Last month a dozen healthcare providers in the US partnered with Apple to provide health records directly on to patients’ phones via an app. The information is presented in a way that incentivises healthy choices and empowers patients not only to make the right choices but to have a more natural relationship with their health and health information, and with the professionals who provide it. With our NHS, we have infinitely more potential than any other country on earth to revolutionise health research and the way we manage and maintain our own health. We need far more ambition to realise that.
I end with another quick word about Tessa, because I would not be here if not for strong women like Tessa pushing me forward way before I came to this place and way before I got into politics. In all those situations I knew Tessa and felt her guiding hand gently pushing me forward. She gave me the kind of mentorship that people need. I have articulated to her many times that it has always been a source of regret that we were never able to sit on these Benches together, because I believe hers is the sort of mentorship from which somebody like me would really benefit as they enter this place.
Tessa, to be here today in the same Chamber as you, and to be sharing these green Benches with you for these few moments, is something I will remember for the rest of my life.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the quality of speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). He may not know it, but we are similar in both having lost our mothers to cancer.
My mother, Linda, was diagnosed with bowel cancer back in March 2011. By that point the cancer had spread to her liver and lungs. She had a couple more good years with us, but she had reached the point where, despite all the treatments, the cancer’s progress could not be stopped. She was very stoic in the face of it.
I was a councillor at the time, and my mother knew I had to take time away from my duties. I remember her saying from her hospital bed, “You do know you can tell people about it?” That was quite a decision for her, because she was usually quite a private person—she was always the person in our family who was not ill or unwell. She did not usually want to talk about her issues, but she was clear that I should talk and tell people about it: if people saw my position, I would get publicity and people would want to know why I was away. The idea that I was spending my weekend with my mum and my family is very different from the idea that I was helping my dad care for my mum when she had just come back from hospital.
All the way through, my mum was keen that her experience should be talked about, and she would be pleased that, even today, it is still being mentioned, because she wanted people who have a suspicion to go and get a test and to find out about it. It is better to find out than to worry and not do it.
My mum was 56 when her cancer was picked up in March 2011, and the irony is that my father had been 60 the year before and they had received the bowel cancer test kit for him in the September or October. He dutifully did what he needed to do with it in the bathroom and sent it back. Of course, it came back clear. Had my mother used the kit, it may well have been a very different scenario. The key thing that came out of it for me is that her tumour was located up, over and right the way back down in her bowel, so the more visible signs did not show. There would have been no blood in the toilet because the blood would have dissipated through her system. But a test would have picked it up, which is why it is so important to me that that message is heard, because people do sometimes think this might be embarrassing and find that when they read the instructions of what to do with the test it sounds a bit odd. There is nothing to worry about. People should not just use it because they are feeling ill; they should use it because it is there and it can tell them that there is something wrong.
The Minister spoke briefly to us before we came into the Chamber and I hope, given my family’s experience, that real consideration is being given to how the faecal immunochemical test can be expanded and, thus, help save more lives, particularly among the under-60s. The fact that this was started at 60—it was a good initiative, which has helped saved lives—almost sent a message of, “Well, when you’re 60 you might get this”, whereas plenty of people younger than that get it. Sadly, my mother passed away from bowel cancer at 59, before the age at which she would have got the test in the post in order to try to identify whether she had the illness.
My mother’s case highlighted one other thing, which we have seen in other cases: once a doctor has concerns, it is important that we can get the tests done quickly to identify exactly what is wrong. With my mother, it was unexplained anaemia and stomach pain that finally triggered the test to be done, but it can be all sorts of complaints. The hon. Member for Hove gave the example of something being wrong but we cannot quite pin down what. I know the ACE—accelerate, co-ordinate, evaluate—centres are being created, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments about how he thinks they can be expanded and developed. Where a GP has a concern with a patient—where something seems to be not quite right but they cannot put their finger on exactly what aspect of cancer it might be or whether it is cancer—we need the ability to get the tests done and a diagnosis made quickly, which then means treatment can start.
It is absolutely right to say that cancer is not the death sentence it once was and it is not taboo to talk about it, as it once was. The only thing my mum hated was when anyone called it “The big C”. She said, “Oh, for goodness’ sake, if you are calling it ‘The big C’ you might as well say what it is. What a load of nonsense!” That was her reaction; she wanted us to call it cancer, because that is what it is. She used to say, “Look, I’ve got bowel cancer. It is not bowel with the big C. It is bowel cancer.” That was very much her view. For some people, that description helps but for her it gave the idea of not being up front about what it is and this was about being able to get treatment. So I hope something good can come out of her experience.
Thankfully, more people are surviving cancer than used to be the case, but this sort of debate is so important. I say that, first, because it brings this up and it is about sharing personal experience. No one is immune from cancer. I know my family history and I know that in my mid-50s there are some tests I need to have. My mum was worried that I might have her genetic condition and so be more liable to get this, but I just said to her, “Well, if it is, the one thing we can guarantee is that I am going to be one of the monitored people in western Europe for that particular condition. Don’t be embarrassed about it, mum.” This was certainly an informative experience for me, and I do hope we can do more. I hope that the result of this debate is that more people can be helped and we can get the death rates down even further.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a genuine privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on securing it. It is entirely appropriate that this debate has been led by two south London MPs. As a fellow south Londoner, may I start by saying what a special place in our heart is occupied by the very noble Baroness Jowell? There are some people we meet in life who radiate positivity, and Tessa is one of them. She has a lightness of step but a firmness of view that is a formidable combination; there was no way those Olympics in 2012 were going anywhere but London! It is right and proper that this House has the chance to debate her latest and perhaps most important campaign: the need to increase research on, and improve outcomes for, individuals diagnosed with brain cancer. The figures on research funding, and the availability of effective drugs and treatment, speak for themselves, and I will not repeat them, as I know time is short.
Last year, I lost two people close to me to cancer. One was my father-in-law, Nigel Ballantyne. I hesitate to say what I am about to say, as I have questioned whether my own grief has skewed my perceptions of the care that he received. I do not think it has. I also hesitate because I wonder whether today is the appropriate time to raise these issues, but I have concluded that Tessa would not want me to pull any punches.
My father-in-law was told that he had lung cancer when he was on his own, in a hospital bed, with only his mobile phone for company. There were complicating circumstances, but there were no excuses. He had struggled to get an appointment to see his own GP and had been passed from pillar to post for months—a situation admittedly not made better by the usual reticence of a 76-year-old man not wanting to cause a fuss, and his understandable desire to go on that holiday that he had been looking forward to. Having said that, the delay in his diagnosis and the way his diagnosis was delivered were unacceptable. He died six days before the general election last year.
Five months later, a good friend died at home after a long struggle. His wife speaks of how she had to fight tooth and nail to get palliative care support in place on the night he died. She described to me a ward that lacked sufficient nursing staff to administer injections without her physical help.
When the national cancer strategy talks about placing patient experience on a par with clinical outcomes and quality of life, it rings a bit hollow to me. I do not want to sound overly bleak, as I know that there are many wonderful examples of good care with positive outcomes, but we do need to be honest. We need to ask ourselves tough questions about how patients are treated on all steps of the care pathway.
Those living with cancer also need more support. Last Friday, my constituent, Amanda Mahoney, whose breast cancer has recurred four times in seven years, came to my advice surgery to ask me to campaign alongside her to change the face of cancer. She said:
“We’re not all bald, we’re not all having chemo. I don’t want to be told ‘sit on a park bench and wait till it gets you.’”
She wants to continue doing the job she loves—she is an outreach worker with autistic children—but her recurring experience has been employer after employer who does not know what to do and a benefits system that seems to make things harder, not easier.
This issue is not going away. This debate is the product of Tessa’s campaigning. She has been able to do what she does best—make her contribution by making those in power sit up and listen. She has been able to continue her working life. Others should be able to do the same, if that is what they want, and employers should be supported to make that happen.
There is so much more that needs to be said, but in the time available it is impossible to do this subject justice, so I will touch on just one other issue, which I know is also close to Tessa’s heart: our impending departure from the EU, which includes our probable departure from the European Medicines Agency and Euratom. Promises were made about extra cash for the NHS after Brexit, but, in stark contrast, Brexit has potentially huge negative implications for cancer research and treatment. We need urgent answers.
The continued ability of British cancer sufferers to participate in pan-European clinical trials is critical, especially for those with rarer cancers. We must ensure that we have a reliable supply of medical isotopes for diagnostics and treatments—that supply is at risk as we leave Euratom. We must not become a second-tier country for access to the newest and the best medicines. The next generation of immunotherapies holds great potential. We cannot willingly put ourselves at the back of the queue.
There are not yet answers to those questions, nor are there answers to the chronic NHS staffing crisis, which is exacerbated by Brexit, yet we are 11 months from leaving. We need a global, cross-border approach to research. We need to be a country that is open to talent and ideas from around the world. We need a properly resourced, adequately staffed NHS that is capable of embracing innovation.
Heidi Alexander
I am drawing my remarks to a close.
It saddens me that we seem a long way from that aspiration, but if we are to honour the work of people such as Tessa and the memory of people such as my father-in-law, it has to be worth fighting for.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). I join other colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and say that it has been a real privilege to take part in this debate. She has achieved something that we often talk about, but today’s debate has highlighted it, and that is that we really do have more in common. Absolutely everybody in this Chamber will have experienced cancer or its effects at some time in their life. We are all touched by it; it has its own dark logic that spares nobody.
In my research on the debate, I was struck by the fact that cancer has been around since 4600 BC. That was highlighted in the excellent book “The Emperor of All Maladies”, written by oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee. He wrote the book to help his patients understand what they were fighting. This disease lived in silence until 440 BC when Herodotus recorded a slave removing a tumour from the breast of her mistress. We do not know whether she was successful, but, clearly, things have moved on considerably since then. However, what has not changed is the devastation, pain and suffering caused by cancer.
I find myself in the presence of someone who has been talked about so much—Dame Tessa Jowell. It is a real honour that she was the one to spark this debate, and I and my colleagues pay tribute to her for the fantastic work that she has done. I hope that we will see some real progress.
Brain tumours have touched my life as well. My son’s classmate, Joseph Foote, lost his life in August 2007. His father went on to found a brain tumour charity, which raised £2 million. He was a real inspiration in our local community. Every single year, as my son gets older and has his birthday, we are aware of the hole in his classroom. When I got involved with the efforts to raise money, I was surprised, like the hon. Member for Croydon Central was, to learn that, of all the cancers, brain cancer was the most common killer of children—I did not know that. The charity has now been merged with the Brain Tumour Charity, and it continues to work really hard.
Of course, there are many other charities. I am delighted that I have been able to support Breast Cancer Now as an ambassador. I will not speak at length about the charity, but it welcomed the launch of the cancer drugs fund in 2016. I thank the charity for the excellent brief that it provided today, and ask whether the Minister will set out the terms of reference for that cancer drugs fund review. We understand that it is under way, and the charity has asked how patient organisations will be involved.
Let me turn to my local hospital, the Alex, part of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which I have mentioned many times in this Chamber. I continue to work closely with the trust. With regard to cancer, I am concerned that our statistics are falling short of a number of key national targets. The trust is still in special measures. It has, unfortunately, let down many of my constituents in the past with long waiting times. That is not good enough, but new leadership is in place. It is beginning to make a real difference in turning around the situation, and that is down to the efforts of the incredibly hard-working frontline staff, and I pay tribute to them.
I have visited the cancer ward at the Alex and seen the chemotherapy that is going on there. I have seen at first hand the care and compassion that the staff display, and I know that it makes a real difference to the people of Redditch at that time in their life.
On cancer statistics, the trust is failing to meet some national targets. There are signs of improvement, which I welcome, but I have a question to put to the Minister and also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who told me when I was first elected that our trust was one of the trusts he was most concerned about. I call on him to make sure that he continues to keep it at the top of his list, and continues to keep it in his focus, because we want it turned around not just for cancer treatment, but for all the treatments that take place there.
There are some good-news stories for the trust. We have seen some new investment in the form of a new testing service, which has been introduced just recently. Breast cancer patients are benefiting from drastically reduced waiting times, thanks to a test now carried out in the labs at Worcestershire Royal. This has cut the time doctors have to wait before deciding what treatment to give patients from three weeks down to two days.
Tests used to be sent to Birmingham, which meant long waits and added cost, and doing them in-house has massively reduced the time taken to produce the results. That means that doctors can decide the best course of treatment as quickly as possible. In particular, this improves the prognosis for patients with certain types of breast cancer. I hope people begin to see that things are slowly improving, but we must never let the trust slide back again, because my constituents deserve world-class services in cancer and in all other health services.
We all know how important it is that cancer treatment starts early, which is why I welcome today’s contributions. Facing a cancer diagnosis and not knowing how long one has to live must be the worst experience that can happen to a human being. As those brave souls fighting cancer know better than us, it is not about counting the days; it is about making every day count—it seems that Baroness Tessa Jowell is definitely doing that. I am pleased the Government are unwavering in their commitment to the resilience of the human spirit and have made cancer their compassionate priority.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Seb Coe described her as “Mary Poppins in stilettos”. The Guardian called her “the ultimate loyalist” and many times rehashed the image of tiny Tessa Jowell throwing herself dramatically under a bus—presumably a London bus. Alan Johnson said she had
“all the warmth in the world but a core of absolute steel”.
The Evening Standard said:
“If you cut her veins, you would probably find the River Thames running through them.”
Google Maps decided to get involved and made her a London landmark, placing her between Big Ben and Westminster Hall—most apt, I think.
For me, Tessa Jowell, whom I worked for once, will always epitomise the best of my city, London. She has long been a professional and personal hero of mine. At one point, we were both Camden councillors, although she has achieved a lot more in her life than I ever will. As all Members have already mentioned in this powerful debate, it was Tessa who was fundamental to bringing the Olympics to London; it was Tessa who constantly talked about how we had to go all out to win and about how big prizes were never won by playing it safe; it was Tessa who said the Olympics would teach us Londoners to be resilient and to celebrate our diversity; and it was Tessa who told us the Olympics would show us the extent of our ambition. How right she was.
In the same spirit that Tessa has talked about her medical condition—the cancer that resulted in her having two seizures in a cab, about which she has spoken so powerfully—and with the same resilience, she has said she will use her experience to make life better for others and improve and lengthen the life of cancer victims. She has shown the same ambition in talking about using innovative cancer treatments that do not currently exist in the UK.
Tessa has inspired me to suggest that we in the House work together to launch an initiative similar to Dementia Friends. For those who do not know, Dementia Friends is an Alzheimer’s Society initiative that offers extensive information sessions so that people can learn about dementia and what they can do to help. The sessions play a crucial role beyond recognising just the signs of dementia, not least because the way dementia affects people varies hugely. I know we already have brilliant organisations such Cancer Research UK and care organisations such as Macmillan, but the role of a cancer friends initiative would be different. It would be more about understanding the medical condition, building resilience through networks and creating cancer friendly communities. Formalising such a body could support many thousands.
Having worked with Tessa, I know she has a strong support network, like no one else, of friends and family, but not everyone has that, as she will be aware from our conversations about loneliness—an important subject put on the map by my late friend, Jo Cox. Tessa would be the first to agree that because not everyone has these networks at their fingertips, it is necessary to consider launching a cancer friends initiative. Such an initiative could also bring profound benefits for those searching for stem cell donors.
I want to mention a constituent of mine, Lara, who has been very brave in the face of adversity. She had a similar condition, but was unable to find a stem cell donor because of her black, Asian and minority ethnic background. If people look into the figures, they will realise that only 60% of patients receive the best match, but if they are from a BAME background, that drops to 20%.
I raised the case of my amazing constituent Lara at Prime Minister’s questions, and I talked about the spit drive we had at the O2 Centre in my constituency. Lara actually managed to find a match and is undergoing treatment because of the network that came around her and the community in my constituency that helped her. A cancer friends initiative could certainly help to spread the word.
I want to talk about Hampstead and Kilburn—I think Tessa would approve of me bringing in my constituency, because she happened to mention her constituency every five minutes when we worked together. My constituency is blessed with some of the finest oncologists in the world. The Royal Free Hospital, which everyone will know about, is a European centre of excellence and is celebrating the 20th anniversary of its neuroendocrine tumour unit. It has grown from having 30 patients to having more than 1,800, and it will soon be joined by the Pears Institute, which will be one of the five leading centres of its kind across the globe, bringing clinicians together to research revolutionary new cancer treatments. Hospitals such as the Royal Free have benefited enormously from Tessa’s work in Camden, where she started out, but, as we know, her work has touched the whole country.
In 2015, Tessa gave a memorial lecture to mark 10 years since the 7/7 attacks. She said:
“This city, this country, this people are a model of resilience… Resilience is rooted in optimism. Behind the strength to stand firm lies the feeling that tomorrow will be better than today… Resilience relies on a commitment to our way of life but also the feeling that life can improve. Progress is not an illusion even in the darkest of hours.”
Tessa was talking about British people, but her words are a perfect testament to the character she has shown in fighting, even after she left these green Benches and was elevated to the red Benches. A model of resilience, a model of optimism, a model of a politician—our Tessa Jowell.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I rise today to talk about some very special people with an Ilford North connection. Perhaps even more impressive than crossing the party political divide in this debate, Tessa Jowell crosses an even greater political divide in London— the River Thames. I say respectfully to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and her constituents that we actually had Tessa first, because, in 1978, a fresh-faced Tessa Jowell embarked on a by-election campaign there. She was defeated, obviously, by the great tides of national politics of the day but, undeterred, she persisted in 1979.
What was so remarkable when I shared the video of Tessa Jowell speaking in the House of Lords in that powerful debate on cancer was just how many of my constituents responded, not just with great love and affection, but with strong memories of meeting Tessa during that by-election 40 years ago. That speaks so strongly of the warmth, empathy and infectious personality that Tessa has brought to her politics. As so many people have said, that certainly made its mark in so many ways on public policy in this country, but anyone who has ever met Tessa has been personally affected by her, and that is why we are all here today, determined to carry forward her legacy in such an important area.
I also want to talk about my constituent Kaleigh Lau. Today is a very special day for Kaleigh and her family—her father Scott, her mum Yang and her brother Carson. Two years ago today, Kaleigh was diagnosed with a diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, which is a brain tumour located in the pons of the brainstem, for which there is currently no cure. At the time, Kaleigh and her family were told that life expectancy with DIPG was just nine months and that they should focus on making memories. Well, last month, Kaleigh celebrated her eighth birthday, and two years on from that awful day Kaleigh, her family and her huge band of friends and supporters are determined to make history, not memories, as they battle to defeat DIPG.
Their journey during the past two years has not been easy. I have followed the family through their tremendous ups and downs: the 30 radiotherapy sessions that young Kaleigh experienced between April and June 2016; that awful moment in December that year when Kaleigh was in progression, eight months in; the closeness with which Kaleigh almost got on to the convection enhanced delivery treatment programme through the compassionate treatment route, only to be told at the eleventh hour that the tumour had spread and CED would no longer be possible; the 10 more radiotherapy sessions that she underwent in January and February 2017; and the moment when Kaleigh’s condition declined to such an extent that the family took her on what they thought would be her last holiday, in March 2017.
Today is also an important day for the family because things changed a year ago today when Kaleigh began experimental treatment in Mexico. By her second treatment, she had regained all her functions. Five other UK families followed her to Mexico. Kaleigh was the first European to receive this treatment. More than 50 people around the world have now undergone the same treatment. None of this has been easy and we do not yet know whether this experimental treatment will be successful, but we know one thing for sure: if Kaleigh had stayed in the UK, she would not be with us today.
Kaleigh’s family have spent over £250,000 to fund her treatment so far, and her ongoing treatment costs them £15,000 every four to six weeks. I pay tribute to Kaleigh’s remarkably resilient family, particularly her father Scott, with whom I speak regularly. Scott has a full-time job and is a full-time dad. He is an utterly selfless human being, to such an extent that every time I call him back, without fail his first words are always, “Thanks for calling. I know you must be busy.” I am nowhere near as busy as Scott is, as a father trying to look after and care for his family on top of everything else that they are dealing with. This is why I address my remarks to Ministers.
I thank successive Ministers—most recently Lord O’Shaughnessy—for engaging with Kaleigh’s case, but they will understand the family’s frustration. After three meetings with the Department of Health, two online petition campaigns and a huge fundraising effort to pay for Kaleigh’s treatment, they do not feel that things are really moving forwards. As Scott says:
“How is the UK government going to help Kaleigh now? Not in the future, but now? Without funding we have no treatment. Overnight we have been forced to become an expert on DIPG, a carer, a fundraiser, a counsellor, an adviser, a leader, a beggar. But ultimately we need help from our government to take the burden off us so that we can focus on Kaleigh.”
There are just a few things that I want to say to Ministers in the short time I have left. We need to become a global leader in tackling DIPG, which has already taken over 200,000 children. We can do this through research, spearheading clinical trials and ensuring earlier access to treatment. We need to do more to ensure financial support to access experimental treatment. I understand the ethical dilemmas, particularly where experimental treatment is concerned, but we have to place greater trust in patients and parents who are willing to take risks.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I am sure that everyone in the House is paying rapt attention to my hon. Friend’s explanation of Kaleigh’s care and determination, and that of her family. Will he conclude the story and tell us what is going on at the moment?
Wes Streeting
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional time.
If Ministers cannot fund treatment, let us at least look at funding the flights, accommodation and all the additional costs that families face. It was remarkable listening to the comparison between what Tessa has been through and what Kaleigh’s family have been through in this respect. We need better care plans, advice and guidance. Scott has to do it all himself, to such an extent that he has become an adviser to families around the world on top of looking after his own children. We need to do a lot more to ensure consistency.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is coming up with some practical suggestions and creative ways of supporting such families. Does he agree that it is important that the NHS thinks sensitively and creatively about how it can support aftercare once Kaleigh and her family come home?
Wes Streeting
That is absolutely right. I pay tribute to Great Ormond Street Hospital and other great NHS services that have supported the family.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said when she opened the debate, we have all been affected by cancer in some way. The worst experience of my life was losing my nan to cancer when I was aged 10. It is a great source of regret to me that I do not still have that great left-wing firebrand who occupied County Hall when Mrs Thatcher decided to shut it down, and allegedly threw a brick at the trucks as they rolled into Wapping. Some of that has rubbed off on me.
I hope that, in looking at what we can practically do to support families, Ministers have heard the powerful contributions made today. I want to say to Kaleigh’s family, to Tessa, and to other families who have been affected by childhood brain tumours that their strength, their courage and their resilience, but most remarkably of all, their enormous generosity of spirit in seeking to help others while they go through an enormous struggle themselves should be an example to us all. Tessa, that is the example that we are following today, and we are determined to make sure that our country gets this right for you.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I cannot compete with some of the wonderful speeches that have been made today. My research would be perfunctory by comparison with some of the things that Members of the House have told us. I will leave this debate knowing so much more about brain cancer than I did when I arrived.
My purpose in speaking is simply to say to Tessa: we are with you. You know, Mr Speaker, that politics is a rough old trade, and sometimes you fall out with people—people you think the most of. I just wanted to be here to say to Tessa that whatever the arguments or disagreements, it counts for nothing by comparison with my admiration and my determination to do anything I can to support her in her campaign.
Joan Ryan
Let me grab this opportunity to say something, because I am sure that Tessa can see that she has got these three women here—me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). We entered this House in 1997 and joined Tessa Jowell on the Government Benches, and we served with her through three terms of the Labour Government. She gave us such fantastic support. I just wanted to leave a rounded picture of Tessa in this very serious debate. I bet she is really a little bit embarrassed at all the praise, but she deserves it. She is such a strong supporter of women coming into this place and getting them through the process to get here. She also has a very ready but very kind wit that we witnessed much of when she was at the Dispatch Box.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank my right hon. Friend—my very best right hon. Friend in this House—and Members can see so many reasons why that is.
Sometimes we fall out, and perhaps we fall out harder on our own side than we do with parties on the other side. Tessa is extraordinary in her example, as are so many people, particularly in the NHS. At 7 o’clock tonight, I will be holding a reception in the Jubilee Room of the House of Commons for the winter heroes from Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust to say thanks to them. If anybody wishes to join us, there will be a glass of wine and a packet of crisps for them. Thanks to the NHS, thank you to Tessa, and thanks to everybody for their brilliant speeches today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate, but especially one on cancer. First, as others have done, I congratulate Baroness Tessa Jowell. I see her not in stilettos but as a real soldier and a real warrior. I thank her for her courage and determination. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for setting the scene. To pick out one speaker in particular, with no disrespect to anyone else, I thank the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) for his contribution. What a joy it is to see him back in the Chamber again making a valuable contribution, as he always does.
This is always a tough kind of debate to speak in, for a number of reasons. We rightly all use the statistics and numbers that are so informative, but tend to gloss over the pain felt by the families and loved ones. We rightly talk about how far we have come in terms of greater life expectancy, yet those families who watch this debate with an empty chair beside them cannot share the victory. We are rightly bombarded with requests from charities and families asking us to highlight their particular issue that needs to be addressed. We want to do that, yet we do not have the time to discuss all that needs to be discussed. We rightly discuss value for money in funding research, yet which one of us is comfortable in putting a price on the cost of the quality of life for someone, and which one of us is happy to dictate a cut-off age when someone is too old to be treated or given innovative new drugs? We all seek to do what is right and to do our best, but it can never be enough when it comes to a debate like this. My father is a three-time cancer survivor. He did not die because of cancer—he died three years ago of natural causes. His survival from cancer was down to the good work of the NHS, the skill of the surgeon and the care of the nurses—and it took all of our prayers.
I highlighted in my own press release background information from Brain Tumour Research, which was probably in the paper today. I recently had a photo with a lovely lady called Phyllis Scott, with whom I have had a great friendship over the years, in aid of raising awareness of brain tumours—I know that that is close to the Minister’s heart. I wore my country sports hat for the purposes of the photograph, and today I am wearing my MP hat to look at the issue of brain tumours.
Brain tumours reduce life expectancy by, on average, 20 years—the highest of any cancer. The statistics are well known. In Northern Ireland, 344 people were diagnosed in the last year. Some 60% of people diagnosed with a high-grade brain tumour will have a very short life in this world. The figures are shocking, but when we meet someone like Phyllis Scott, the human face is very clear. Some 62% of children who survive a brain tumour will be left with a life-altering, long-term disability. Brain tumours are the biggest cause of preventable or treatable blindness in children, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup pointed out. Some 91% of adults said that their brain tumour affected their emotional and mental health. Those are the key figures—many of those diagnosed with brain tumours have tremendous issues.
I love the hard-hitting new Cancer Research advert that shows an older couple in bed together as a stark reminder that the issue is not simply surviving, but living with a husband or wife and children. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke about being a breast cancer champion. I am one too, and I very much wanted to do that. The number of people diagnosed in the UK went up by 17% between 2006 and 2016. Some 95% of women will survive one year and more than 80% survive five years or more. None the less, every year around 11,500 women and 80 men in the UK still die from breast cancer.
I have asked the Minister about the drugs fund many times, and so many other hon. Members have mentioned it that it would be remiss of me not to do so. The threshold is £30,000, and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) mentioned putting a price on the drugs that help a young child survive. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has now endorsed the NICE recommendations on Kadcyla, Ibrance, Kisqali and Perjeta, as a result of the flexibility shown by NICE, tough negotiation by NHS England and a willingness to compromise on price by the pharmaceutical industry. However, this flexibility, negotiation and compromise can lead to long delays in decisions. I urge the Minister to consider how we could best provide access to drugs more quickly and urgently to increase the quality time that people have to spend with their loved ones.
I want to put on record my thanks to Cancer Research, Macmillan, Marie Curie and others that make the difference to the quality of life that those who suffer from cancer experience. We must push forward and keep doing all we can, and know in the end that we gave all we had to fight this disease that affects our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, grandchildren, even the person we buy our paper from—all the people we meet every day. Cancer is a blight on society, but if we continue to fight on, someday we will be able to say that we have won, and cancer has lost.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I am really glad to join friends this afternoon to pay tribute to Tessa’s work. I remember from the last Labour Government how, with Tessa and others, we kept our sanity even when the difficulties were on our own side—some things never change. We were accused of plotting at our dining club, but the only plots were about who would cook the next meal. What I remember is the laughter and joy of those soirées at each other’s homes.
Tessa was our first Public Health Minister, and I am so proud and glad that I am also part of that illustrious band. I am sure that she and her family would agree that Labour was best when it was at its boldest, and we have a chance to be bold by supporting Tessa’s initiative here today.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party, and to acknowledge speeches by the hon. Members for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Croydon North (Mr Reed), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Hove (Peter Kyle), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and by the right hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).
As a new Member of the House this has been a very strange week for me, and it is the first time that I have felt quite a lot of emotions. Sometimes the public watch these debates and see Members of Parliaments slinging mud at each other across the Chamber, but no one could help but be moved by some of the incredibly personal speeches that have been made today, and that reminds those watching that we are all human beings after all. People have shared deeply personal stories, and it has been a real privilege to sit through this debate.
Like other Members, I pay tribute to Baroness Jowell for her bravery and for the moving speech that she made in the Lords. I know that when we watched that speech most of us were moved to tears, and I am glad she is here today. I also wish to acknowledge the late Dr Mo Mowlam. I was disappointed that she was airbrushed out of much of the media coverage of the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, because as an outsider looking in, I cannot help feeling that that agreement would not have been achieved without her. I am currently reading her book, and I cannot help but be moved by the effort that she put into Northern Ireland, and she did all that while going through an illness as well.
As an MP from Scotland, I want to offer a bit of experience from north of the border about our cancer strategies, and describe the commitment and improvement that we want for children and young people with cancer—I will return to that point. There is no doubt that we face many challenges, not just in Scotland but across the UK, when it comes to cancer. One problem we need to grapple with is obesity, which is the second highest cause of cancer. We must be as bold about diet and obesity as we have been about tobacco and alcohol, and everyone should consider that. That is definitely a challenge for me—my colleagues are not here, but they know that I do not have the best diet in the world, and diet and food choices are a real challenge when combating obesity.
We must also channel some focus on to free school meals and the choices made by children. Sometimes we think that cancer is just bad luck or something that comes to people, but there are things we can do to try to avoid it. For example, we know that advertising junk food harms people and puts pressure on the NHS, other public services and our economy. There is clear evidence of the need to curb the marketing of food and drink that is high in fat, salt and sugar. A large number of 11 to 18-year-olds have seen television adverts for those foods, and nearly half of those surveyed had made a purchase based on the marketing they had seen in previous days. We should consider banning such adverts during programmes for children and those under 16, because if we are serious about tackling obesity and reducing the prevalence of conditions such as type 2 diabetes, we must make it as easy as possible for young people to eat healthily and have a good diet. That means seriously reconsidering the marketing of unhealthy food and drink, and reducing exposure to such advertising on TV.
Before I conclude I want briefly to consider cancer and young people. We know from CLIC Sargent that around 4,000 children and young people are diagnosed with cancer every year in the UK. Every day, 11 children and young people hear the news that they have cancer, and every week 10 children and young people die from cancer in the UK. Cancer is the most common fatal disease for teenagers and young adults in the UK. CLIC Sargent’s 2016 research found that young cancer patients often had a long and difficult route to diagnosis, which they felt had a detrimental impact on their treatment and experience.
Cancer costs families in many ways, including financially, as parents report an average additional expense of £600 for every month that their child is on treatment—the hon. Member for Ilford North touched on that. Some of the expenses are travel, extra food, energy bills and car-related costs, including parking. Families are travelling an average of 440 miles a month to access treatment for their children. At this juncture, I want to commend the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has been an assiduous campaigner in calling on the Government to scrap hospital car parking charges in England—they do not affect us in Scotland—for young cancer patients and their families.
We have had a good and very moving debate, and I am sure we will return to this subject again, hopefully with more progress. I close by thanking the hon. Member for Croydon Central for giving us the opportunity to discuss this hugely important topic. Above all, I want to thank the noble Baroness Jowell for joining us here today. We are all the richer for having her with us.
Mr Speaker
Just before I call the shadow Minister, I would like to emphasise that I would like the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) to be able to briefly wind up the debate no later than 4.57 pm. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to be speaking in this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Indeed, I am speaking in this Chamber for the second time today. Both debates have been on very important issues.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for securing the debate, and for her very moving and emotional speech. I also want to thank the other hon. Members who have spoken in this excellent debate: the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who moved us all to tears, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). They all made excellent contributions. Members throughout the House have been visibly moved by the moving testimonies we have heard.
As has been said, no one in the House or in the country escapes being touched at some time in their life by cancer. I lost my mother-in-law to breast cancer 21 years ago. That was one of the reasons why I joined the all-party group on breast cancer and work with it to this day. I thank the Secretary of State for being here. I am very pleased to see him back in place. I know that Tessa and others will be very grateful for his attendance, and for the personal and moving tribute he gave earlier. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State, who also made a personal tribute to Tessa.
I pay enormous tribute to our very good friend and colleague from the other place, Tessa, for her bravery and determination, and for the outstanding speech she gave in the other place. That was another occasion when people were visibly moved to tears, not just in the other place but across the country as it ran on the news all day. She is as much an inspiration now as she has always been throughout her political career. In 1997, as we have heard, she became the first Public Health Minister—she is a predecessor of the Minister who will be responding today. With the then Secretary of State for Education, Lord Blunkett, she set out to build Sure Start, the early years programme of which she should be immensely proud. It has transformed the lives of tens of thousands of children across the country and been a lifeline for parents, some of whom have said that without it they do not think they would even be here today.
I am enormously proud to have played, in a very small way, a part in continuing the fight for early years provision over 20 years on. When I became shadow Children’s Minister, Tessa’s personal support, advice and guidance were invaluable in helping me fight to protect the legacy she had built. I remember one particular conversation when she said that she had told her officials that she wanted to walk into a Sure Start children’s centre and be able to smell the babies, so she would know the centres were being used and that lives were being changed.
Tessa’s optimism and ambition have affected us all over the years, especially in the run-up to, and in the aftermath of, the 2012 London Olympics, which, as we heard in detail, she secured as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Even since her diagnosis, Tessa continues to inspire us all with her hard work and determination. I wish her all the love in the world, and I really look forward to joining her a little later with her friends and family for a get-together.
As Tessa said in the other place:
“Today…is not about politics but about patients”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1169.]
I know from my work over many years chairing or co-chairing two cancer all-party groups that we can and do work together when it comes to tackling cancer. The Minister and I co-chaired the all-party group on breast cancer, along with the former hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, Dame Annette Brooke. I am still vice-chair of that all-party group, and I pay tribute to my fellow officers for continuing their hard work in the group to raise awareness in Parliament of breast cancer.
I also chair the all-party group on ovarian cancer. Observant Members may have noticed that there is always some cancer campaign going on, and last month it was Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. For the first time, the all-party group hosted a drop-in photo call, challenging MPs and peers to be a “teal hero”. This included wearing a superhero mask and a cape—I do not know whether the Minister came along and managed to get caught—to raise awareness among our constituents of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer. I am sad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who lost his mum to ovarian cancer when he was a teenager, came along and, complete with a superhero pose, pipped me to the post for “best picture”. I hope that colleagues will join me again next year—I will be looking out for the Minister. Although it was fun, it was for a very important purpose: to raise awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer.
Finally in this regard, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his sterling work as chair of the all-party group on cancer, which regularly unites all the cancer charities and all-party groups in debates and in work throughout the year, and most notably at the Britain Against Cancer conference every December. All-party groups and the many other cancer groups are the perfect example of how cancer is not about politics. I believe that we have seen that exemplified in its best form in the House today, and that in future we can put our politics aside for Tessa and for all cancer patients and truly fight cancer together.
Around 11,400 people were diagnosed with a brain or related tumour in 2015 in the UK. That includes the approximately 470 children under the age of 15 who are diagnosed with a brain or related tumour in Britain each year. I also commend HeadSmart for the work that it does to raise awareness of the symptoms of brain tumours in children. Brain tumours are the largest single cause of death from cancer in adults under the age of 40, and the most common type of solid tumour in children.
There are, of course, challenges to brain tumour research that limit progress in developing innovative treatments. As we have heard, brain tumour research in the UK has been grossly underfunded, with just 1% of the national spend on cancer research being allocated to this devastating disease. That is why the recent announcement that £45 million would be invested in brain tumour research was so very welcome. I hope that some of the funding will be used to create opportunities for collaboration so that research and data can be shared around the world, because there are real and concerning gaps in the research workforce, both at a senior level and in the number of junior researchers entering the field.
There is also insufficient infrastructure for brain research, and the research community is fragmented, with no clear hubs of excellence and limited opportunities for collaboration. We need to address those challenges for the sake of patients and their families so that we can improve the lives of those living with a brain tumour. One way to do that is to ensure that all brain tumour patients are invited to participate in clinical trials, which can lead to significant improvements in survival and quality of life for future patients diagnosed with a brain tumour. However, despite the clear correlation between greater research and improved outcomes, only 3% of people with a brain tumour take part in a clinical trial. That compares with 7% across all cancers, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that brain tumour patients are entered into clinical trials?
In June 2017, the Brain Tumour Charity conducted a survey that found that 97% of those with a brain tumour said that they would be happy to share their medical data to help to accelerate research. As we have heard, Tessa has made the historic decision to be the first patient to consent to sharing her data in the hope that her cancer journey can contribute to new cures that alleviate future suffering. Let me again take the opportunity to commend her for her selflessness. I know that where she leads, others will naturally follow.
For Tessa, the Olympic legacy and Sure Start are just two of many legacies to be proud of, but I think that this legacy will be even greater in its reach and importance. For that, we once again thank you, Tessa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
On one of the hottest days for a long time, and certainly the hottest day of the year so far, being inside the House of Commons and listening to some of the speeches that have been made has been an absolute privilege. It has been an experience that I, as a Minister—let alone as a Member of Parliament—will remember for a long time.
Let me first thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for securing the debate. I thought she spoke brilliantly, and set the tone for the last two-and-a-bit hours. But we should not beat around the bush: we are all here primarily because of one person. That person is, of course, Baroness Jowell, who is present, sharing the Chamber with us, and whose strength and grace in the face of her illness have done so much to raise public awareness of the challenges of diagnosing and treating brain cancer. I do not have a long history of knowing the Baroness—in fact, I met her for the first time on Monday—but I am already well aware of her strength of character and her determination to make a difference in this latest campaign.
Like all Members, and especially, I suppose, as the current Minister responsible for cancer issues, I was captivated by the speech that Tessa made in the other place about her latest battle. Our debate today has been emotive and constructive, and I am grateful to the many Members who have had the opportunity to pay a similarly worthy tribute to Tessa’s bravery and determination in the House of Commons. For me—and many Members have said the same—perhaps the most memorable line of the Baroness’s speech in the other place was this:
“In the end, what gives a life meaning is not only how it is lived, but how it draws to a close.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
She is giving that line great meaning.
As has been mentioned many times, Tessa also referred in her speech to the importance of living with cancer—living longer with cancer, but living with cancer. As one who was motivated to go into this business in the House by fighting and losing far too many battles against cancer, I would say that, for all of us who are diagnosed with cancer, we are never just our cancer. Tessa is not just her cancer, and she is not just the cancer campaigner that she is now. She is still a mum, and she is still a wife. You spoke at the start, Mr Speaker, about the love. There has been one hell of a love bomb here today. When I have been able to, I have looked over at the Under Gallery, and I have certainly seen some love there this afternoon. It has been incredible and very moving to see it.
I think that what made that line in the speech in the other place so remarkable is that Baroness Jowell has given so much to our country, from being my predecessor as the first ever public health Minister to giving the country one of its greatest cultural events in London 2012. Through her enthusiasm and courage, she is driving people in the country and around the world to confront not just one of oncology’s most difficult challenges, but one of medicine’s most difficult challenges. We should not underestimate what a difficult challenge brain cancer is.
Let me say on behalf of the Government that we will do everything possible to meet the challenge. Those who know me as the cancer Minister know that I am impatient and determined—as is the Secretary of State—to do well, to do better, and then to do better again in fighting the big C, or cancer, or whatever we choose to call it. I say that not out of arrogance or ministerial bluster—I write my own speeches—but because I believe that this challenge is one that we can overcome. I was truly inspired when meeting the Baroness for the first time on Monday at the inaugural meeting of the UK brain tumour steering group, so ably chaired by my colleague Lord O’Shaughnessy, who I know has already become a firm friend of hers. So in my brief remarks I shall focus on three areas where we will do more, and which sum up pretty much what every Member covered in their speeches.
The first area is research. On 22 February, just a month after the Baroness’s powerful speech, Department of Health and Social Care Ministers met Tessa and representatives from the Eliminate Cancer Initiative at the Cabinet Office to try to find solutions to improving outcomes for people fighting brain tumours. That very day the Department’s task and finish working group into brain cancer research published its report on brain cancer research in the UK, setting out how to increase the level and impact of research into brain tumours going forward. The group was set up in 2016 and was chaired by the Department’s chief scientific adviser Professor Chris Whitty. It brought together clinicians, charities, patients and officials to discuss how, working with our research funding partners—key in this—we can address the need to increase the level and impact of research into brain tumours.
To back the report, as all Members will know, the Government and Cancer Research UK together announced an investment of £45 million over the next five years to turbocharge research in this area. This will begin—but only begin—to make up for the historical lack of research in this field and further strengthen a number of our existing centres of excellence in places such as Cambridge and the Institute of Cancer Research here in London.
The National Institute for Health Research spent £137 million on cancer research in 2016-17, the largest investment in any disease area. However, according to Brain Tumour Research, even though brain tumours kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, as has been said, just 1% of the national spend by all cancer research funders on cancer research has been allocated to brain cancers. That is why—as everyone has said today—we want to move quickly on beginning further research, and I am pleased to say that the NIHR began inviting applications for the new funding this Monday. We urge researchers to apply, and help us generate the breakthroughs that could give hope to the thousands of people diagnosed with brain cancer every year in our country.
My second point is on data sharing. We know that, due to the rarity of many types of brain tumours, it is vital that we use patient data more effectively—the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) spoke very well about that—ensuring that it is shared safely, securely and lawfully not only between the NHS, charities and academia, but between like-minded countries internationally. The UK has a proud history as a proponent of open data and data sharing, and I give my Government’s commitment to work with the Eliminate Cancer Initiative and partners nationally and internationally to make this a reality on brain tumours. The ECI made the point at our meeting on Monday that patients’ data must be given for the common good, not the almighty shilling; I know that Tessa shares that sentiment. Tessa’s daughter, Jess—who is also here today and whom I met on Monday—said that we support and advocate the sharing of data not as an end in itself, but as a vital means through which to improve patient care and develop new treatments; she is of course a chip off the old block and absolutely right.
Baroness Jowell exemplifies the ambition we have, and we will carry it forward. In the Houses of Parliament tonight, Tessa will launch the global universal cancer databank, and has committed to be the first donor to that databank, which we hope can catalyse the sharing of data across the world and save the lives of many. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be pleased to be there.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I want to touch on patient engagement. We must ensure that patients are at the centre and heart of our work on brain tumours, so we will build on the existing work to develop a clear timeline and plan for reducing the time to diagnosis for brain tumours, which is as important in this cancer as in all others. We will also implement new models of patient care, such as the Cambridge model, and the national roll-out of innovative new tools such as the 5-ALA ‘Pink Drink’, which is very important. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently developing a new clinical guideline on brain tumours, which includes the use of 5-ALA, with publication expected in July. We will also redouble the Department’s efforts to ensure there are appropriate and ethical frameworks to allow patient access to experimental medicines, and allow for the re-purposing of drugs and the acceleration of the development of new patient-focused adaptive clinical trials, which is so important.
Many Members have spoken so well in this debate. I will not list them all, but it was a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) back in his place, making his first speech from the Back Benches in a long time. I worked closely with him when he was in the Northern Ireland Office; he is one of the nicest guys in Parliament and he spoke brilliantly about #KeepOliviaSmiling—and it was good to see my right hon. Friend smiling again. He talked about ring-fencing money in the NIHR for brain tumour research for children. The level of research spend in a particular area, such as child-specific tumours, depends on the number and scale of successful funding applications. He will be aware of our joint announcement in February, which included the opening of Cancer Research UK’s new children’s brain tumour centre of excellence at the University of Cambridge. Maybe he will go along and have a look at that at some point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke well about prostate cancer, and I was proud that we were able to make that announcement last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about the ACE programme. I have said before that I do not easily get excited at the Dispatch Box, but I am genuinely excited about these new ACE multidisciplinary diagnostic centres. When people present to their GP with vague symptoms, these centres will provide a chance for them to get in and get an answer—a diagnosis or an all-clear—quickly. I visited one of the ACE centres, at the Churchill Hospital in Oxford, in February this year. The enthusiasm that I heard from the clinicians and patients there gave me real hope, and hope is a key word in today’s debate.
I should like to conclude by once again thanking everyone who has made such positive contributions to what has been a really memorable debate. I recognise that we are only at the start of our journey to beat brain tumours, but now is the time for patients, the NHS, charities and industry to come together—as we in this House have done today—both nationally and internationally and to redouble our efforts. The funding we have committed for additional vital research, and our ongoing work to look at every aspect of diagnosis, treatment and care, will help us to deliver ever more positive treatment outcomes for people with brain tumours, but we have a long way to go. This is of course happening alongside our system-wide transformation of cancer services in England through the cancer strategy, which we have debated at length here many times.
Baroness Jowell has been the catalyst for this rapid activity on brain tumours, and it is incumbent on us all to continue to work closely together over the coming months and years to build on this legacy. She is here today, and I know that she will be watching us closely. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, now is the time for
“painful effort…grim energy and resolute courage”
to beat this terrible disease. And, as I always conclude: for team cancer, the fight goes on.
Sarah Jones
I should like to thank everyone who has spoken so eloquently and movingly today. I cannot name everyone in the time remaining, but I often stand in awe of the Members of this House, and no more so than today. We have had quite a harrowing week in this place, and it has sometimes been quite dark and difficult. There has been a lot of shouting. However, we have closed the week by talking about human kindness, compassion, love and hope. That is what a drop of Tessa magic does for this place. When I saw Tessa just before the debate, she said that this was not about her or about us, and that she wanted it to be about what comes next and what we should do. I hope—and I have faith—that the Government will prove that Tessa’s model of collaboration is more effective than the model of confrontation that we have unfortunately seen so much of this week.
I have here a note from Tessa that I would like to read out. This is odd, because she is just over there, and she could say this herself, but I shall read out a little bit of what she wanted me to say today:
“Living with cancer has taught me so much. I have been so lucky to be surrounded by such love from my family, friends and fellow cancer patients. And today, hearing so many of you talk about your own fights, reminds me why I love this Palace of Westminster and the people who work here. It was a brilliant Member of this House, who spent far too short a time here, who said ‘we have far more in common than that which divides us’, and today shows how much we can do when we all put our shoulders to the wheel. It was the honour of my life to be one of you, and I shall cheer on from the sidelines as you keep fighting the good fight. So remember our battle cry: living with, not dying of, cancer. For more people, for longer. Thank you.”
Mr Speaker
In rounding off these proceedings, before we move to the Adjournment, perhaps I can thank warmly and from the bottom of my heart the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for securing the debate, for what she said in opening it and for the manner in which she did so. I think I speak for everybody in thanking all participants in the debate, both those who made speeches and those who intervened with great piquancy and significance—I say that looking directly at the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and, in his absence, thinking of the shadow Secretary of State. Their presence meant an enormous amount.
At the outset of the debate, I asserted with absolute confidence that Tessa was about to witness and experience real parliamentary love—the embrace of parliamentary love. I hope that the warmth of that embrace of parliamentary love has been manifest to her. She cannot have been in any way disappointed by it. Tessa, you are the standing testament to the indomitability of the human spirit and we have heard about that from people who know you so well in so many aspects of your life. I am quite certain, although I do not know it from personal experience—I can see it from the impact on those around you—that it is true of you as a wife and as a mother. It is assuredly true of you as a distinguished Member of Parliament—the Member, for so long, for the people of Dulwich and West Norwood. I thought that what your successor said about the affection and esteem in which you continue to be held there was worth everything.
It was most certainly true of you as a Government Minister, the details of which have been lovingly recalled to the Chamber this afternoon. Of course, we all know of the significance of what you did on the Olympics and, if I may say so, the significance of what you did by way of Sure Start and early years opportunity. When I briefly did a little work in a support capacity on speech and language services a decade ago, I trogged around the country—what a privilege it was—and visited huge numbers of such settings. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the work you did and the translation from conception to execution transformed the lives of some of the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens. That is part of your amazing public service legacy.
As somebody who is living with cancer you have shone a light on a cruel curse and the need for collaborative, resourced and unflagging devotion to the effort to tackle that curse. The hon. Member for Croydon Central, quoting your letter, said that you loved this place. I hope that it is blindingly obvious to you, Tessa, that we love you—[Applause.] These breaches of parliamentary protocol are becoming more commonplace, but I think that this week we can rejoice in them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House pays tribute to the work of Baroness Tessa Jowell in her campaign to help people with brain tumours to live better lives for longer; recognises the Government’s increased funding for research; and calls on the Government to increase the sharing of health data and promote greater use of adaptive clinical trials.
Fire Safety Remedial Work: Leaseholder Liability
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I am pleased to have secured this important debate. The issue of liability for fire safety remedial work is of great concern to many Battersea residents, as it is to people in many parts of the country, and for good reason. The horror of the Grenfell fire made it clear, if greater clarity were needed, that there should be no complacency on fire safety.
While we await the final publication of the Hackitt review, which is investigating the fire safety regulatory system and identifying who is responsible for failures and what system is needed, the interim report stated that the regulatory system, at present, is “not fit for purpose.” I fear that is the result of successive Governments not treating fire safety with the appropriate importance.
Of the 158 social housing blocks with unsafe cladding, just seven have had the cladding fully replaced. One of the blocks waiting for work to begin is Castlemaine Tower in my Battersea constituency. Its residents have known for 10 months that their building, like Grenfell, has unsafe cladding. No data is available on the progress on privately owned blocks, and Wandsworth Council has not published the number of blocks that have the aluminium composite material cladding that has been deemed unsafe. Given the number of blocks in Battersea, it is imperative the council publish that information. I have requested the information from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The Government must get their act together and ensure that fire safety work is carried out, but to do that they need to resolve, as a matter of urgency, questions on what work needs to be done, who needs to do it and who should pay for it. It is the Government’s responsibility to resolve those questions and, so long as they do not do so, the risk of another tragedy is prolonged.
Here we arrive at the crucial question of leaseholder liability. I welcome members of the Sesame Apartments residents association to the Public Gallery. They have come to Westminster desperate to hear reassurance from the Government. They are leaseholders of an apartment block in Battersea that was completed just four years ago and that last year was found not to meet fire safety standards after a fire in the block damaged multiple apartments, revealing that compartmentalisation had failed.
Worryingly, the fire occurred while a “stay put” policy was in place. Subsequent testing found that the cladding was defective and in need of replacement. In the light of the fire safety failures, the “stay put” policy was changed to immediate evacuation, and a waking watch system was put in place as a temporary solution.
As we know, such fire safety failures need proper rectification, and that work needs to be paid for. The waking watch and fire alarm system are anticipated to cost approximately £700,000, which is more than £8,500 per flat. Replacing the cladding is expected to cost around £2 million, which is £25,000 per flat. In total, the cost per flat is estimated at between £30,000 and £40,000.
After a tribunal ruled last month that leaseholders of Cityscape in Croydon would be held liable for replacing defective cladding, the residents of Sesame Apartments fear the entirety of those eye-watering costs will fall on their shoulders, which cannot be right. They cannot be held liable for these costs. These are hard-working people who scrimped and saved to buy their flats.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She mentions Cityscape in Croydon North where the leaseholders have a similar problem to the residents she represents. When the issue has previously been raised in the Chamber, the Government have pointed the finger and said that the insurers of the builders, freeholders and managing agents should be bearing the cost of removing and replacing that cladding, but no legal obligation has ever been found on any of them.
The Government are leaving leaseholders hanging with unaffordable debt and living in homes that have become unsellable—homes that they fear are not safe to live in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should act now to get the cladding removed from every building where it exists? They can sort out the legalities afterwards. The only body in a position to act now to keep people safe is the Government. Why do they keep refusing to do it?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank for my hon. Friend for making that valid point, which I will certainly be addressing. He is spot on in saying that the Government are the only people who can respond to this issue and deal with the problems that our leaseholders face.
So many of these people are first-time buyers, and many are living in shared ownership properties. They do not have tens of thousands of pounds to pay for the work that needs to be done, and they have done nothing wrong. They bought their flats in good faith and they are in no way responsible for the fire safety failures. To date, the Government have seemingly agreed, saying that, morally, leaseholders should not be held liable for these costs. But my constituents need those words to be backed up by action. For as long as that does not happen, the leaseholders will be beset by fear. After all, how would we feel if we were told that our home did not meet fire safety standards, that we might be asked to pay £40,000 to rectify that and that our largest financial asset, our home, was now a huge liability? That is the situation that residents of Sesame Apartments find themselves in.
I have heard from a teacher who lives in the block and who had hoped to move in order to start a family, but is now weighed down by this liability, unable to sell and trapped in her home. I have heard from a resident, who spoke to me about the heartbreak of the money they had saved for IVF—in vitro fertilisation—treatment now needing to be set aside for fire safety work. I have heard from another whose pride in getting a foot on the housing ladder was crushed when they were told that, just by owning 25% of a shared ownership property, they are now potentially liable for 100% of the costs. Every resident I have spoken to tells me of the stress and fear caused by this liability hanging over their head.
The same is true of leaseholders across the country. Why are leaseholders being put through this ordeal? The Hackitt review is identifying who was responsible for fire safety failures, but this is causing anguish. The review might conclude that the Government are responsible, because fire safety regulations are not fit for purpose. It might conclude that the building inspection regime is responsible, because some local authorities have privatised inspections, leading to a serious decline in standards. Or it might conclude that developers are responsible, because they have been cutting costs to maximise their profits. It might conclude any of or indeed all those things, but what it will categorically not conclude is that leaseholders are responsible—of course it won’t.
These are working people who have had no say over the regulations, or over the design or the building of the property, yet it seems that, legally, they are going to be held responsible for these life-shattering costs. As anyone would, they are attempting to contest that, but they tell me how powerless they feel in that process.
We are talking about a small community of hard-working people, but they are confronted by a web of opaque freeholders, management companies, insurers and unresponsive developers, none of whom wants to take responsibility. The residents do not have armies of lawyers at their disposal. It is a David and Goliath situation, and the law is not working for these people. But it not just about that, as for the corporations involved their profit lines are at stake, whereas for the residents it is their homes and their lives. There is a real concern that if this is allowed to run its course and the Government do not intervene, the working people will be paying for failures that are not of their own making—that is unacceptable.
The Government seem to recognise that, because they have already said on multiple occasions that they acknowledge that it is morally wrong for leaseholders to be held liable for these costs, but those must not be empty words. The Government have the power to intervene and make this right, and it is their responsibility to make this right. They need to do more than just encouraging freeholders not to pass on these costs. They need to do more than support the Leasehold Advisory Service. They need to step up to the plate and intervene on behalf of leaseholders.
There are actions that the Government could take. They could, and should, properly look to see whether the developers or the freeholders that profited from cost-cutting and lax regulations are liable for the costs, or they could cover the costs themselves, which is what the residents I have spoken to believe should happen.
If the Government refuse to do that, the least they could do, as suggested by one of the Sesame Apartments residents, is provide loans to cover the costs, thereby allowing fire safety remedial work to begin immediately. The loans could be attached to the freehold and stretched over the 100-year duration of the leasehold, with repayment instalments reflecting that. That would ensure that if leaseholders were held liable, the additional yearly service charge would be close to negligible. It would achieve the key requirements of any intervention: first, it would allow remedial work to begin as soon as possible, thereby minimising the risk and fear of fire; and, secondly, it would allow leaseholders to get on with their lives and not be weighed down by an unaffordable debt. I urge the Government to take action to achieve those goals.
I conclude with two straightforward questions for the Minister. First, it might become clear from the courts that leaseholders are legally liable for the costs. If that happened, does she think it would be acceptable? Put otherwise, does she think that residents should be held legally responsible for the costs of fire safety work, even though she knows that residents are in no way at fault?
Secondly, if leaseholders are found to be liable, what do the Government propose to do for those leaseholders who cannot afford the remedial work? I am asking, in essence, whose side the Government are on—David’s or Goliath’s. I thank the Sesame Apartments residents for coming today. I know that they will be listening with interest to what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for speaking so passionately about the situation in which some of her constituents find themselves. I thank all Members for their contributions. I recognise that the recent fire in Sporle Court will mean that fire safety is at the forefront of people’s minds in Battersea, although we understand that on that occasion there were no injuries.
Let me begin by making it clear in the widest sense that the Government are committed to promoting fairness and transparency for leaseholders in England. To that end, on 21 December 2017, we announced a package of measures to tackle abuses and unfair practices in the leasehold market. That includes introducing legislation to prohibit the development of new build leasehold houses other than in exceptional circumstances, and restricting ground rents in newly established leases of flats to zero financial value. We are working with the Law Commission to support existing leaseholders, including by making buying a freehold or extending a lease easier, faster, fairer and cheaper. With that context in mind, it is hugely important that leaseholders, like any other residents, are kept safe in their homes.
The fire at Grenfell Tower was a terrible tragedy. The Government are determined to learn the lessons and take all necessary steps to ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. I wish to set out some of the steps that the Government have taken since the tragedy. The Department’s building safety programme, set up immediately after the fire, is working hard to ensure that all high-rise residential buildings are safe from the threat of fire, and that residents feel safe in them. To support that, the Secretary of State appointed an expert panel to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to ensure the safety of residents of high-rise buildings. Following the panel’s recommendations, the Government provided advice to building owners on the interim measures that they should put in place to ensure the safety of their residents. We swiftly identified social housing blocks and public buildings with unsafe cladding. All the affected social sector buildings that we have identified have these measures in place.
Mr Reed
The Minister will recall the lethal fire at Lakanal House in 2009. In 2013, the coroner who investigated that tragedy urged the Government to change the fire safety regulations that govern the use of cladding—specifically, approved document B. The Government failed to amend that regulation in 2013 and now, five years later, they have still failed to amend it. The criticism was that it was unclear what kind of cladding could and could not be put on a building. For that reason, flammable cladding exists on hundreds of blocks today. Will the Minister explain why the Government have done nothing in the nine years since Lakanal House?
Mrs Wheeler
The important thing is that the Hackitt review has already released interim recommendations, which we have accepted. We await the review to report later this summer. That will be the answer going forward.
All the social housing blocks and affected social sector buildings that we swiftly identified had the measures in place. In parallel, we tested different combinations of cladding and insulation to see which of them met the building regulations guidance. We published consolidated advice in September, confirming the results of the tests with advice for building owners. We have also been working with building owners and industry to support remediation work.
At the same time, the Government asked Dame Judith Hackitt to undertake an independent review of building regulations and fire safety to ensure that buildings are safe in future. We are taking forward all of the recommendations for Government contained in the interim report, and look forward to the publication of her final report shortly.
We believe we have identified all affected social housing blocks and public buildings. With regard to private sector buildings, the Government have made the testing facility at the Building Research Establishment available free of charge, and we continue to urge all building owners to submit samples for testing if they think that they may have unsafe cladding. In addition, the Secretary of State wrote to all local authorities in August asking them to identify privately owned buildings with potentially unsafe cladding in their area in line with their statutory duties.
Marsha De Cordova
On that point, my local authority, Wandsworth Council, has still not published any information around those private blocks that could potentially have flammable cladding. Will the Minister take it on herself to continue to press the council to get on with the job and publish the information? She made the recommendations last summer.
Mrs Wheeler
I hear what the hon. Lady says. We have close contacts with Wandsworth Council.
In addition, the Secretary of State wrote to all local authorities in August asking them to identify these properties. The majority of local authorities recognised the urgency of that work and provided relevant information, and we are very grateful for their hard work. However, this is not a straightforward task, particularly when building owners cannot be traced or are unresponsive. We have been in constant dialogue with local authorities ever since. Last month, to support local authorities in that work, we announced a financial support package of £1 million to assist the most affected local authorities in identifying the remaining private high-rise buildings with potentially unsafe cladding.
We are progressing work to issue a statutory direction as to local authorities’ reviews of housing conditions in their area in respect of cladding-related issues. We are also working to publish additional operating guidance to support local authorities in assessing the risks to residents posed by potentially unsafe cladding.
These measures will help local authorities to take enforcement action to ensure that hazards in residential buildings in their areas are remediated as quickly as possible. I am confident that these steps will strengthen local authorities’ hands when carrying out this work. I can assure hon. Members that, as soon as we are notified of buildings with potentially unsafe cladding, we work with local authorities and the National Fire Chiefs Council to ensure that interim measures are put in place.
The Government have been clear that remediation should be done as quickly as possible, but it should also be done properly. Let us be clear: the remediation of buildings with ACM cladding is a complex process, involving major construction work which needs to be planned, consulted on and carried out carefully. Rushing any phase of the remediation process could jeopardise the safety of residents. I am encouraged that remediation has started on 103 affected social sector buildings and that, of those, seven have finished remediation work. There is clearly a long way to go, but that is significant progress.
I understand that funding is a concern for Wandsworth Council. In the social sector, all the local authorities and housing associations that we have spoken to have indicated that they have no plans to pass on the costs of essential remediation work to individual flat owners within their buildings. We will consider financial flexibilities for local authorities that are concerned about funding essential fire safety works to the buildings that they own.
In the private sector, we continue to urge those with responsibility to follow the lead from the social sector and not attempt to pass on costs. They can do that by meeting costs themselves or looking at alternative routes such as insurance claims, particularly warranties, or legal action.
Mrs Wheeler
No, I am going to finish.
We are aware of cases in Battersea where freeholders are seeking to do just that.
Mrs Wheeler
No, thank you.
Where building owners are seeking to pass on remediation costs to leaseholders, it is important that leaseholders can access specialist advice to understand their rights. We have provided additional funding to the Leasehold Advisory Service—LEASE—which provides independent, free, initial advice to leaseholders to ensure that they are aware of their rights and are supported to understand the terms of their leases. LEASE continues to provide valuable support to affected leaseholders around the country. On 15 March, the Secretary of State announced an industry roundtable on the barriers to the remediation of buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding.
Mrs Wheeler
No, I will not.
I hope that the points I have made have reassured—
Mrs Wheeler
No, I will not, sir.
I hope that the points I have made have reassured hon. Members just how seriously we are treating the building safety issues that the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower brought to light, and our commitment to supporting leaseholders and all residents throughout this process.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for her urgent question, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his statement. What are the Government doing through the Prevent strategy in schools and colleges? Obviously, Prevent is the thing that stops the conveyor belt to extremism.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are really to reduce the risk to our people, we need to invest in prevention. Although some people have issues with the Prevent scheme, we published the first lot of figures last week showing yet again that more than 200 people have been diverted away from following a path of violent extremism, and schools play one part of that role.
[Official Report, 28 March 2018, Vol. 638, c. 766.]
Letter of correction from Mr Wallace:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
The correct response should have been:
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are really to reduce the risk to our people, we need to invest in prevention. Although some people have issues with the Prevent scheme, we published the second lot of figures yesterday showing yet again that more than 200 people have been diverted away from following a path of violent extremism, and schools play one part of that role.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
Will he agree to meet the people leading the review on radicalisation policy in Greater Manchester, the leaders of Oldham Council and of Bury Council, to learn lessons about whether the Prevent programme is in fact working? There are massive differences of opinion on that. Will the Government agree to learn from the review that Greater Manchester is undertaking on radicalisation policy?
Mr Wallace
I am very happy to meet the people undertaking that review, but I must point out that the figures published yesterday and those published earlier in the month show that Prevent is working in many areas.
[Official Report, 28 March 2018, Vol. 638, c. 770.]
Letter of correction from Mr Wallace:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis).
Mr Wallace
I am very happy to meet the people undertaking that review, but I must point out that the figures published yesterday and last year show that Prevent is working in many areas.
Petition
Provision of adequate, ring-fenced funding for mental health services
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Oil and Gas Industry
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK oil and gas industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for attending on such a glorious, hot day—it is particularly lovely and warm in this room. It is difficult to sell the oil and gas industry on quite such a hot day, but I am assuming that the air conditioning is running on electricity.
Oil and gas is a massive part of the UK economy. Since 1964, 44 billion barrels have been produced, resulting in £330 billion of production taxes for the Exchequer. The supply chain has an annual value of £30 billion, and every 1 billion barrels of oil are worth £50 billion to the UK economy.
Geographically, the oil and gas industry is centred in the north-east of Scotland, and it has a huge impact on my constituency of Gordon, north-west of Aberdeen, where there are, remarkably, 233 oil-related companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) cannot be here due to illness, but his constituency and those of Aberdeen North, Banff and Buchan, Moray, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and Angus to the south, are also very involved. The industry is spread throughout the rest of the United Kingdom but has a particularly large footprint in Scotland. Some 59 UK constituencies have a major oil and gas presence, from the northern isles, Shetland and Orkney, all the way down the east coast. Apart from Aberdeen, major industrial cities such as Dundee, Glasgow, Newcastle, Hull, and Norwich—to name just a few—are very involved in the industry. It employs more than 300,000 highly paid, highly trained people, with internationally employable skills. People from all over the UK work in the sector. It is a truly national industry linking every part of the UK.
At its peak, tens of thousands of offshore workers were transiting through Aberdeen International airport, which is in my constituency. They came from many destinations, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Humberside, Portsmouth, Norwich, Newcastle, Southampton, Exeter, East Midlands, Birmingham, Bristol—that is not naming them all—and the south-east of England, as well as from further afield, including Dublin and Belfast and with connections to Norway, Holland and the rest of Europe.
This is a global industry—the UK at its best. Only this week I discovered that Mozambique has the third biggest discovery of gas in the world and Scottish companies have been involved by the Department for International Trade.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an important issue. I am sorry that there are not more people here to discuss it, and that I have to leave before the end. He did not mention Teesside, which is of course the real centre of the oil industry. We have enjoyed a great partnership with colleagues in Aberdeen. Some £5 million of capital investment in new fields in the continental shelf is expected this year. Is he aware that companies that employ contractors are having extreme difficulties in recruiting people with the necessary skills for the new jobs now being created? Does he agree that the Government need to do more to improve the skills base to ensure that British workers can work on these British fields?
Colin Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes a very constructive intervention. There were 460,000 people working in the oil and gas industry; there are now nearer 300,000. With the amount of redundancies and people laid off in the industry, we might have expected that unemployment in the north-east of Scotland and on the rest of the east coast would have gone up sharply, but these are highly skilled people with highly transferable skills, and many companies that I visit in my constituency are already reporting a skills shortage, which is a concern that I am sure the Minister will mention.
It is very important that our universities and colleges engage with what the industry wants. One of the criticisms I heard recently was that there is not enough training in digitalisation for engineers. One company, Aker Solutions, a Norwegian company with a large base in Aberdeen, is recruiting from Mumbai because those engineers are trained in digitalisation. It is a serious worry for me that training and recruitment are not matching up.
Returning to my point about Mozambique, DIT had companies from Aberdeen and the north-east looking at the opportunities out there. There was also the Israeli ambassador’s lunch the other day—there are now huge finds of gas in the Mediterranean. Skills in the United Kingdom, particularly in the north-east, for example in directional drilling, will play a very big part in that.
I want to focus on the importance of the industry—its longevity, future and strategic importance—as well as Government involvement and the moral questions that surround the sector. The industry has come through some very tough years. As I said, employment in the sector has dropped from 460,000 to 300,000, but most of those people have been employed elsewhere. Employment has held up well, as people have also been employed overseas. Although there has been a downturn in the oil price, the amount of oil being produced pretty well holds up, so the number of people involved may simply move to another part of the world.
By early 2016 the price had declined by 75% in 18 months, so the industry withstood an enormous price shock, as opposed to a demand shock. Other basins stepped up production to maintain market share, most notably the middle east and OPEC. There have since been OPEC cuts and caps, which are helping to provide some sort of cost stability. We are seeing the price move nearer to $70, which starts to make the UK continental shelf much more profitable, or at least more able to cover its costs.
The main point to make today is that this is not a dying industry. Production will decline from the peak of 4.5 million barrels in 1999-2000—it is now down to about 1.5 million barrels—but it is still an incredibly important industry for this country.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend agree that oil and gas is not a transitional industry on the journey through to a decarbonised world? There are many industries and many people who will be using oil and gas as an energy source, and for other reasons, for many years to come.
Colin Clark
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which took evidence from Lord Turner, the former chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. I asked him for how long he saw oil and gas being a major source of energy, heat and power, and he said at least into the next century, which is well over 80 years. He went on to say that in terms of an industrial raw material, we just do not know—we could be looking at hundreds of years. It is important that we realise that we probably cannot bring all the hydrocarbons we have to the surface, but that we certainly have to use them better and in a much cleaner way. I know that is a big consideration, particularly in the City of London.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I want to reassure my hon. Friend that I, the Government and many industry commentators absolutely see a role for oil and gas in the mix going forward, with a shift towards gas. Technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which I have had the great pleasure of debating with the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and others in this House, are part of the way to extend the industry’s life even further. The Government are committed to gas—it is not just me; it is other international parties as well—but finding ways that can help us take carbon out to keep the energy supply flowing is also part of that mix.
Colin Clark
I thank the Minister for that intervention. It is very important that we are careful that this industry is not demonised and is not seen as something of the past. It is a constructive industry and it is important that we do not suggest it is a stopgap until we move on to something else. We have to recognise its importance. How we use hydrocarbons responsibly is something we have to get right for generations to come, while reflecting on how we have got it wrong in the past.
Alex Cunningham
There is also the legacy industry from the parts of the industry that have changed. A huge decommissioning industry is growing up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that contracts around decommissioning should be subject to even greater regulation in order to protect not just the environment but the interests of British workers who need to train to carry out this decommissioning work, which could create thousands of jobs for Teesside?
Colin Clark
The hon. Gentleman must have read my mind, because I am coming on to decommissioning. It is interesting that Hartlepool has already set itself up to take the topsides of rigs. That is pretty remarkable, because I remember that when I was standing for another election back in 2015 I was told that large vessels come and take the topside off, and then take it away to Turkey or the middle east to be broken up. I was told that, apart from a bit sub-sea, decommissioning was not going to be done in the UK. I am delighted that we are going to carry out decommissioning. This is about how ambitious we are to be involved in it. There are huge opportunities.
Alex Cunningham
There is the opportunity not just to decommission the rigs, but to bring them in, reconfigure them and put them back out on to the Dogger Bank to provide platforms for the people servicing the offshore wind industry. Would the hon. Gentleman support that?
Colin Clark
That is a very valuable point, and I know that the Oil and Gas Technology Centre in Aberdeen is looking at that. The initial idea was that everything would have to be taken down to the seabed, including the concrete installations on the bottom of the seabed. The industry is starting to look at the opportunities. The Oil and Gas Technology Centre is particularly active in thinking about what we can use again and what has significant value. There is a real opportunity with renewables, whether solar or turbines.
The current estimates put the total decommissioning spend at about £60 billion, but the Oil and Gas Authority is targeting a 35% reduction in that cost. Decommissioning has a big effect on the Exchequer, so it is important that we come up with an efficient way of doing it. Companies such as Well-Safe Solutions, based in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, are coming up with industry excellence to ensure that we do not learn a new lesson every single time we do this. We want much of the decommissioning industry to be in the United Kingdom. Apart from anything else, morally we should do as much decommissioning in this country as we can safely and in a way that fulfils what we want to do. We should not simply offshore our responsibility to developing countries.
Although there are opportunities for the UK supply chain, it is important to know how much of the cake we will get and what our ambition is. The biggest part of the decommissioning spend is the technical side—the technology and the design. We are already well positioned to do that in the north-east and the rest of the country.
The ambition of the industry, and the vision of people such as Sir Ian Wood, is to extend the North sea’s life with small-pool and late-life development. The industry can report growth; it is showing resilience. Oil and Gas UK’s “Business Outlook” report, released on 20 March, said that more new investment is expected in 2018 than in the past three years, so things are starting to tick up. Production in 2018 is set to increase by 5%, making it 20% higher than it was five years ago. That is resilience; the industry is not going backwards. Unit operating costs, which were a huge problem in the North sea and got completely out of hand, are now down to about $14 or $15 per barrel, compared with a barrel price of $70. That is not the total cost, but it means that we are now internationally competitive, which is very important.
The supply chain is still under enormous pressure, but revenues will stabilise in 2018. Cash flow and, most importantly, profitability remain a challenge. The service sector is telling companies in the oil and gas sector that they are being squeezed far too much. The problem is that if the tier 1s and tier 2s put them out of business, they will not be there for tomorrow, and that will be an economic disadvantage to the country.
More exploration is needed to realise the basin’s full potential. Transferable tax history, delivered by the Chancellor last year, is expected to remove barriers to late-life investment. The problem was that the tax advantages that a tier 1 company built up may have prevented other investors from getting involved in the oil industry, because they are unable to use the decommissioning tax breaks. That is very important, and it demonstrates the UK Exchequer’s broad shoulders.
Maximising the potential of existing fields is key to sustaining production at current levels to 2050. Oil and Gas UK estimates that
“between 12 and 16 oil and gas developments could get the go-ahead this year”—
as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said—
“unlocking investment of around £5 billion.”
It goes on to say:
“That’s more than the new oil and gas field approvals sanctioned over the last three years combined and promises a much-needed business boost for the supply chain”.
It is important that the supply chain starts to negotiate contracts that will sustain it into the future. There is excess capacity, and if the oil producers squeeze too hard we could see a depletion in the number of people involved, and in the long term that will be very bad news.
Norway is always cited as an example. Exploration is tax-deductible in the Norwegian sector, and there are vast reserves. However, when companies find oil, they pay up to 78% tax, compared with the UK sector, for which it can be 20%. The industry reports that the greenfield and major brownfield developments set to be approved this year could yield more than 450 million barrels of oil and gas over time, although that still falls short of the level required to sustain long-term production at current levels.
We cannot underestimate this; the industry is not out of the woods. Oil and Gas UK said:
“The project landscape for 2018 is the healthiest the industry has seen…greater exploration success and maximising the potential within existing assets are essential for the future”.
Oil and Gas UK is not pulling its punches. It is saying that we see green shoots in the industry, but if this does not happen they could dampen back down. Oil and gas companies make decisions about investing money, and they are very tough about where they do that. They will invest in the UK continental shelf if it is the right place, but if there is somewhere better to invest, they will do that. It is important that the UK continental shelf remains fiscally one of the best places to produce oil. We must applaud the sector, because it has learned to be leaner. The UK continental shelf is more efficient, and optimism is returning to the sector.
To blow the trumpet of the north-east for a minute—there are several north-east MPs here—
Alex Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman means north-east Scotland. We use “the north-east” to refer to north-east England.
Colin Clark
Quite right. I mean the generic north-east.
The north-east of Scotland has 7% of the population, but 15% of the Scottish economy. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) will agree that it is the engine room of the Scottish economy. The policies of Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government must encourage companies to thrive, and not be damaging. The cost of living in the north-east of Scotland is higher—house prices were driven up by the boom years, so we have the highest council tax bills—and employers feel penalised by what they see to be very high business rates. The empty business property rates have unfortunately backfired and are encouraging landlords to take buildings down. It is important that we invest in the north-east of Scotland—this is a plea to this place as much as it is to Holyrood—and that the money we raise there is spent there.
Over the lifetime of this Parliament, as much as £500 million of extra rates will be raised in the north-east of Scotland. My plea is that we spend that money in the north-east of Scotland, whether on roads, schools, hospitals or other facilities. It is important that we make the north-east of Scotland not only the right place to invest, but the right place to live. If somebody flies in from Houston or comes up from London or Europe, they have to come to somewhere they really want to live, so it is important that we invest in the area.
Andrew Bowie
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a general feeling in the north-east of Scotland that the region has been undervalued and underfunded by Governments over the past few years?
Colin Clark
Yes, but many parts of the country feel they are underinvested in. The engine room of the Scottish economy is taxed that much more than other areas—if we do not invest in it, we risk killing the golden goose. That is the important thing. I am not saying that other areas are not deserving; I am saying that if we do not invest in the north-east of Scotland and the surrounding area, it will not be an attractive place to live, and it will be very difficult to attract people to work there.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same concepts apply to the £330 billion of oil revenues that came to the Westminster Parliament?
Colin Clark
I will not disagree, save that the principle is that that £330 billion was to the UK Treasury, which invested for many years throughout the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Stockton North will remind me, not only the original Scottish sector has oil, but the islands, the rest of the UK east coast and now the west coast of Scotland as well.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I wanted to make this point earlier; it came up in conversation with a Treasury Minister last year. We had to remind that Minister that oil and gas exist not only off the coast at Aberdeen, but all down the east coast, on the west coast, to the west of Shetland and the Northern Isles in general, off Morecambe bay and all around the UK. That is why we call it the UK continental shelf and not just the North sea.
Claire Perry
I wanted to do two things, briefly: first, I remind everyone of the wonderful page 218 of the industrial strategy, which shows the productivity gains that the industry has delivered to the north-east—productivity gains driven by a UK Government-wide fiscal policy that supported the industry through the 1970s and ’80s. Secondly, I remind hon. Members that the carboniferous formation that has delivered the offshore extraction has also allowed us to explore, in a sensible, environmentally safe and robust way, onshore extraction of such incredibly valuable resources. The formation runs underneath us as well.
Colin Clark
I thank Members for that plethora of interventions—it is good that everyone is so interested on such a hot day.
As I was saying, this is an enormously important industry, which has been the bedrock of the manufacturing industry of the United Kingdom. That is why Her Majesty’s Government have invested in it and made this country one of the best places fiscally to produce oil and gas. With the transferable tax history, the UK Government have delivered a massive incentive to invest—other Members campaigned for that for some time. However, it is important that the companies now investing in the industry understand their future responsibilities and that the companies that invested in the past, which have already had the tax benefit, realise that they still have a responsibility.
Fiscal policy makes the UK continental shelf one of the best places to produce oil and gas, and the low corporation tax of the United Kingdom means that the bigger part of the industry, the service sector, is well compensated when operating in the UK. To produce more revenue and grow the whole economy is what we are trying to do. For “business sector” read “jobs”, because employment in the oil and gas industry is picking up, and there is a huge spin-off from the industry. It has been reported that more than half of the companies surveyed expect employee numbers to rise this year. That is a big change.
The north-east of Scotland and the rest of the country involved in oil and gas have seen numbers heavily depleted. As we discussed in a Westminster Hall debate on social mobility a few weeks ago, some businesses are reporting difficulties in recruiting people with certain skills and competencies. That is a worry; perhaps our technical colleges and universities are not producing enough. I had not realised that that could be the case—I expected that Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen or Aberdeen University would be completely focused on the oil and gas industry, but there is already concern about skills shortages.
The oil and gas industry reminds me of the space programme in the US in the 1960s: when oil was $120 a barrel, the industry could not spend money fast enough—probably throughout the entire world, but particularly in the UK continental shelf. Since the oil price has dipped, the industry has obviously pulled back from training, which is probably the reason for our skills shortage. We saw a massive dip in training, although it is beginning to pick up again. Government should do everything possible to encourage training and investment in training, because the industry will continue to be important.
In the north-east we have the highest concentration of technicians and engineers in the United Kingdom—in both north-easts—and all sides can recognise that that is hugely valuable all over the UK. It is also important at the Oil and Gas Technology Centre that STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—learning is an important part of what the oil industry offers.
Recently, the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce carried out an industry survey including employment and attitudes. I shall give a few of the numbers because it is important for us to understand where the industry is. The picture is a mixed one, but 80% of firms believe the industry has hit the bottom of the cycle and is now starting to go back up. That means we will start to see investment again—and we are. Fifty-four per cent. of the companies expected to be growing, which is very important, because we are clearly coming out of what was a major recession.
Companies also predicted that they will grow new opportunities, as came up in an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Stockton North. I visited Sparrows, which builds complex cranes. It had a £10 million order for cranes to put on turbine platforms, to lift parts on and off: 105 of those automated cranes at between £50,000 and £100,000 each. That is a huge investment, and there is the industry diversifying out. More than 80% of companies expected to be involved in decommissioning, where the spend will probably be about £40 billion—that is not to be sniffed at and will sustain an engineering industry for a long time. Many sectors in the United Kingdom would like a £40 billion investment.
On Brexit specifically, the survey covered the issue of recruiting talent in future. The figures are worth mentioning: 47% of the companies surveyed believe that there will be no effect; and 33% were worried. I accept absolutely that we have to get immigration right because this industry employs such highly skilled people.
The Oil and Gas Technology Centre, funded by the city region deal to the tune of £180 million, combines academic research, including that of Aberdeen and Robert Gordon Universities, and industry to create value: to unlock the potential of the UK continental shelf, to anchor the supply chain in the north-east—predominantly the north-east of Scotland, in this case—and to create a culture of innovation that attracts industry and academia. The centre is trying to bring all that together.
For a long time, the oil and gas industry operated in silos, with independent commercial organisations. Sir Ian Wood, with one organisation, has been brilliant at encouraging companies to come together. I have to say—I am sure that all Members involved would agree—that the basing of the Oil and Gas Authority in Aberdeen has been an enormous success. I would be delighted were other Ministries to consider basing anything related to oil and gas in Aberdeen as well.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and for indulging me so thoroughly, because I have to leave the debate early. He has made a comprehensive case for investment in skills, innovation and development, but there is also the matter of the workforce. For example, workforce confidence in helicopter transport has diminished considerably in recent times. Since 2009 there have been 65 rescues and 33 deaths involving the Super Puma model. Does he agree that confidence in offshore transport needs to be rebuilt? The Government ought to consider and implement a public inquiry to help build that confidence again—that it is still safe to get in a helicopter to fly offshore.
Colin Clark
That was a valuable intervention. Recently, the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group met Airbus and the unions involved. There is obviously significant concern about the Airbus 225, also known as the Super Puma. At the moment, the Sikorsky S-92 is the main workhorse in the North sea. The problem is that if the 92 were grounded for any technical reason, or if there was any other reason to keep that helicopter on the ground for a week or two to check something, the industry would close down. Commercially, Airbus obviously wants to see the 225 come back in, and that is very much an issue for the Department for Transport. It is important for us to have confidence, because there is no other way to supply oil rigs.
When we had a visit from the Secretary of State for Transport, one or two of his advisers said, “This is brilliant, flying out in a helicopter.” I said, “How do you think they get back and forward?” The journey cannot be done by boat; it can take two and a half hours to fly offshore on a helicopter. Helicopters are important to the future of the oil and gas industry, so I accept the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we must restore the confidence of people who work offshore.
Alex Cunningham
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of that could be an open and transparent public inquiry? Everyone would be able to see, which would instil the level of confidence that workers are demanding.
Colin Clark
Also, the trade unions and their representatives have to be very careful that they base what they are saying on science, not anecdotal evidence. I have heard one or two things said that made me very worried; I will not say that it was scaremongering, but they undermined people’s confidence in what is absolutely essential. The people who work in the oil and gas industry do not want to see helicopters grounded; they want to be safe and they want to be confident about how they get back and forward from the rigs.
I would like to mention two projects by the Oil and Gas Technology Centre. It has a great ambition for an underwater innovation centre, which is very important to the sub-sea sector. That is a very big part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is no longer in his place. It is also about to create the newly announced decommissioning centre in Newborough, in my constituency, which is trying to be the centre of decommissioning technology and ability, so that the UK plays a key part in it and we do not move it elsewhere.
In monetary terms, Vision 2035 aims to create £1 trillion of revenue over the period to 2035 only. The Oil and Gas Authority has a potential upper level of 20 billion barrels of oil, and that expectation is based on barely a quarter of what there could be. We want to see the supply chain double to £500 billion over that period. That is an absolutely enormous part of the UK economy paying tax, contributing and investing in people. Through collaboration, the maximum economic recovery that has been developed by the industry could provide £400 billion. Again, that is just up to 2035. The collaborative effort between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government shows that when we work together, businesses and jobs benefit. That is pretty well what all our constituents would expect us to do.
The private sector is beginning to have tremendous confidence again in the oil and gas industry. In 2017, there was a staggering $8 billion of merger and acquisition activity in the sector; Chrysaor invested $3.8 billion to purchase Shell assets, and that was before transferable tax history. There was also activity in the supply chain that included Wood Group and Amec, which together are to become a FTSE 100 company, and GE and Baker Hughes, which plan to float on the New York Stock Exchange. They are mammoth businesses investing in a lot of people. The variety, size and type of M and A deals last year signal confidence in the UK continental shelf.
We live in a free market economy where Government must create the right conditions for growth, which is why we are here today to address the Minister. Anti-business rhetoric of demonising job creators, overregulation or punitive taxes all damage growth, as does demonising hydrocarbons by suggesting that they are somehow a thing of the past that we should not be getting involved in. Achieving inward investment requires a dynamic economy with flexible labour laws, hence our historically low unemployment. High taxes destroy investment and job opportunities.
Government must be very conscious of what they are doing. We need to grow the whole economy, not just take more slices out of bits of it. Past Conservative Governments have made mistakes on that very point, particularly in the oil and gas industry. Deirdre Michie said:
“We need more exploration if we are to get close to recovering the three to up to nine billion barrels”
of oil.
Whenever we speak of oil, the figures are absolutely enormous, as is its economic impact: as I said earlier, 1 billion barrels of oil is £50 billion of contribution to the economy.
The UK has signed up to significant carbon reduction. Hydrocarbon production is presented by parts of the media and politicians in this place—I have heard them on many occasions—as part of the problem. Renewables have become a large part of electricity production, but there is twice as much energy transferred by the gas ring than there is by electricity because, apart from on a hot day like this, this is a country that needs heating in our homes. Natural gas produces half the greenhouse gases that coal does. The UK continental shelf industry is part of the solution, not the problem. Each and every one of us gets up in the Chamber as often as we can to remind people that the industry is a very valuable part of the economy.
As the Minister mentioned, the Oil and Gas Technology Centre sees the future being hydrogen and carbon focused, with unmanned facilities and reusable structures. Already, BP in the Quad 204 is putting into practice sub-sea automated structures and vessels, as opposed to rigs. This is a rapidly changing industry—we are changing skills.
I would like to mention a Government elsewhere with a lot of Scots people who moved there many years ago: New Zealand has announced that it will not allow any new offshore development. They are simply offsetting their responsibilities to overseas. They are somehow going to oversee their responsibility for energy, so they are just moving it to a different jurisdiction, where they will have no idea what the ethical and safe practices will be. That is simply pushing away their responsibilities.
Oil and gas are part of the transition, but they are part of our economy, potentially for centuries. They are an incredibly important raw material. As somebody said to me, “You don’t make electric vehicles with wood”—not yet at least. Hydrocarbons, oil and gas and plastics are a major part of those industries. I want people to remember that it is our throwaway culture that polluted our seas, not the existence of hydrocarbons. Already, the UK has slashed emissions by transferring to gas.
I heard recently in a Committee that some would suggest that oil and gas should not be part of the so-called ethical pension funds, should not be considered for green finance, and that somehow we should just turn off the taps and stop using hydrocarbons. Not only is that unrealistic, it is a fairy tale and completely luddite. Hydrocarbons have driven the industrial and green revolution. We would not be where we are if it were not for our use of hydrocarbons. That does not mean that we did not mistakes.
Life would be a lot harsher and the population would be a fraction of what it is. I worry when environmentalists say that, because I wonder whether they are basically saying that there are too many people on this planet and we cannot sustain them. I do not quite know how they will work out which economies should carry on developing and using hydrocarbons, and which developing and third-world economies will somehow be deprived of the development that the western world has enjoyed. Oil and gas has been pivotal in transforming the carbon intensity of the power sector, with cost-effective emission reductions achieved through a significant switch from coal to gas.
I would like to briefly mention fracking, without being overtly political. Everybody should remember that hydraulic fractioning of rock formations has been used in the North sea for 30 years. It has been done very safely and under the jurisdiction of Governments of various parties, who have been very careful how it is delivered. I do not really want it to get into the general narrative that somehow that is not safe, because that would suggest that what we are doing offshore, perhaps thousands of feet below the rigs, is not safe.
Well construction and the UK continental shelf has been absolutely at the top of the industry. Directional drilling and hydraulic fractioning has been developed in the North sea, so we should not just discount it. I ask the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government to remember that there is a science and a very good background to what we have done in the North sea. However, I respect the right of communities to say that they do not want onshore fracking. I also respect the right of communities to say they do not want onshore wind. But let us be frank: it is about nimbyism. They do not want it in their backyards. That is what it is about, rather than a denigration of the science and technology of those sectors.
Deirdre Michie said recently:
“As we move to a lower-carbon economy, the UK needs to meet as much of its domestic demand for oil and gas from indigenous resources”.
I would like to thank UK Oil and Gas, Deirdre Michie, the Oil and Gas Authority, the Oil and Gas Technology Centre, and also local organisations and companies that have fed into what we are speaking about. We can see the importance and scope of the industry, which has the potential to produce more than £1 trillion of revenue for the Scottish economy and to all economies of the north-east and the rest of the UK continental shelf. That is absolutely enormous.
The industry has longevity and huge strategic importance. Particularly at these times in the world, when we consider where our energy is coming from, our own gas supplies are of incredible importance and we should be investing in them, if for no other reason than to give us energy security. We must remember that the basin still employs 300,000 people in highly paid and highly technical jobs that drive other areas of research in the economy.
Will the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ensure that we have an energy policy that recognises that, on the Department’s own figures, oil and gas will still provide two thirds of total primary energy by 2035? Oil and gas must be a vital component of that policy, which should consider affordability, security of supply and environmental sustainability.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I assume that the hon. Gentleman also supports the call for an oil and gas sector deal as part of the industrial strategy.
Colin Clark
The hon. Gentleman must have read my speech—ah, there is a camera behind me! Yes, there should also be a sector deal focused on transformational technology, underwater engineering and decommissioning that drives technology with spin-outs to the wider economy. That is so important with regard to STEM subjects alone. It worries me that young people—students and kids who are still at school—say, “Has the oil and gas industry got any future?” One young man said to me that he was going to work in the car industry, building cars with steering wheels. I said, “Nobody will be driving them in 10 years’ time, but we’ll still need oil and gas, so I would stick to the oil and gas sector.”
My third ask of the Department is to support the high-tech and highly productive supply chain, which has the potential to double its share of the global services market. I ask Departments more broadly to ensure that the UK continental shelf remains fiscally competitive and that we have UK frameworks that strengthen the UK internal market, which is essential to oil and gas.
BEIS has long supported the industry, and we appreciate that one of the Minister’s first visits in her current post was to Aberdeen.
Colin Clark
It was her first visit. She clearly recognises the importance of the sector. Given her unique position, which covers energy and clean growth, I am sure she agrees that natural gas in particular has played a transformational role in reducing greenhouse gases, and I look forward to her continued support.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a delight to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is always good to have a debate focused on oil and gas; we have not had enough of them recently. I am also delighted to be in Westminster Hall—I feel like I have not been here for some time—and I am thankful for the air conditioning, which is incredibly useful today.
I will not spend an awful lot of time disagreeing with my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), because I agree with most of what he said, but I will start with a slight disagreement about helicopters. I agree with what the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said about people’s nervousness. We and the companies involved ask people to undertake dangerous helicopter journeys just to go to work. In conversations with Airbus and other organisations involved with the helicopters, I have said, “It is not me you have to convince that the aircraft are safe; it is the people who are asked to fly on them.” To do that, those organisations need to have as many conversations and answer as many questions as possible. That is the only way they will possibly regain the confidence of people in the industry.
Alex Cunningham
On that basis, does the hon. Lady support my call for a public inquiry so that we have full transparency about exactly what happened and what is being done to rebuild confidence in particular models, which are still yet to come back into service?
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question. To be perfectly honest, I am not clear that an inquiry is widely called for; an awful lot of information has been published. If lots of individuals from my constituency and from the industry more widely asked me for such an inquiry, I absolutely would look at that. I am not saying no, but that is not something that people generally have asked me for. They have looked at the evidence that has been published so far and taken decisions on that basis.
I will talk first about the oil and gas industry in general, although obviously I will speak particularly from the perspective of the north-east of Scotland, as Members would expect of an Aberdonian. I will talk about where we have come from, where we are and where we will go with the industry, and about how to get to those places. As I said, some of my asks are not dissimilar to those of the hon. Member for Gordon.
We were in a situation where the industry was overspending significantly. When it was told that it could have a widget today for £400 or tomorrow for £4, it chose to have it today for £400. There was an awful lot of fat in the system. Now the industry is able to make more profit at $60 a barrel than it was at $120 a barrel, just because it has slimmed down a lot of those costs. One of the most important things for us to do is to capture that—to ensure that, whatever we do, we do not lose the gains we have made.
We have undoubtedly been through an incredibly painful period. We have had an awful lot of pain and suffering in the north-east of Scotland. I get that. A number of people have found alternative jobs—they have been supported in that by various organisations; the Scottish Government have put a lot of effort into that—but some have not. We do not want to forget that there are people who still have not got through the pain of having to go through a redundancy process. We need to remember that and ensure that, whatever we do, we do not set ourselves up for another fall like the one we had. That is really important.
We had a very competitive system, in which companies were unable to work together or point in the same direction. Local authorities were not particularly good at that, either. What really brought local authorities, the business society and civic society in all of Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and the north-east of Scotland together was the bidding process for the city deal. Working together on that was really important. I am pleased that we got a city deal. Anyone who has read anything I have said about the deal will know that I was unhappy about how low level it was—I would have liked significantly more money for my city, and I am not sure that many people in the north-east of Scotland would disagree—but the process was very beneficial, as was the direction that the city and the shire took. I hope that we keep hold of that.
Colin Clark
The hon. Lady is gracious in giving way. Does she worry that there is a perception that the north-east of Scotland is relatively wealthy and therefore will take care of itself, and that sometimes that affects investment in the region?
Kirsty Blackman
I certainly worry that the city deal that was signed was looked at on a different basis from some other city deals. The Scottish Government have put in significant additional funding to the city deal, particularly recognising the issues with infrastructure. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about looking at additional infrastructure projects and so on. The Aberdeen western peripheral route will make incredibly positive changes. No one can wait for it to come—I think we are expecting it in the autumn. It will be hugely positive and will make a big difference, and I think that it will help encourage people to come to the north-east.
Let me turn to where we are now. Companies are working together like never before. I was at the forefront of calling for changes to transferable tax history, but other parties supported them; the Conservative party was behind the call, too. I very much appreciated the Chancellor making those changes in last year’s Budget. I would have preferred them to happen more quickly, but we cannot have everything. We are looking forward to their implementation later this year. I could not be clearer about how important they are, and I am sure the Government recognise that.
Just for a bit of information, if a big company owns a number of rigs and one of them is nearing the end of its life, the company has a choice: it could put a lot of work, capacity and people into that installation to try to get the maximum recovery from it, or it could say, “Look, this is not a priority for us. We are focusing on other things.” That is completely understandable, but the transferable tax history allows a new company—a new player in the market—to take over that asset to ensure that the maximum recovery is made from it. That is really positive, and I am pleased that it has happened. That is a helpful measure in terms of maximum economic recovery, which we are fully behind.
Where are we going? I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Gordon mention Vision 2035, because it is incredibly important and people do not talk about it enough. It is the vision for the future of the Oil and Gas Authority, which so far seems to be doing a good job. It focuses in particular on the north-east of Scotland, but also on the wider industry across the whole of the United Kingdom. Vision 2035 is about ensuring that we get maximum economic recovery, extract oil and gas from the small pools and have a supply chain that is anchored—particularly in the north-east of Scotland—so that once we get to the stage when no oil and gas is coming out of the North sea, everyone will know that the very best supply-chain companies for oil and gas are in the north-east of Scotland and parts of the wider United Kingdom. Then, rather than seeing those companies lifted and based in the US or other countries, they could continue to sell their expertise, with a tax take continuing to come in and be spent here—preferably in Scotland.
We must anchor the supply chain now for the future, and there are a few ways to do that. In relation to small businesses, all too often such businesses in oil and gas come up with a great concept, start working on it, grow the business to a point and then they are sold. I get that that is a way forward for some, but both the Scottish and UK Governments are beginning to ensure that if such companies have the potential to grow, they do not get sold and their concept lost within a bigger international company but can access the finance they need to anchor themselves and have that next step of growth, whether that is through beginning to export or ensuring that their intellectual property is turned into something real that can be sold. That is really important for the supply chain, rather than seeing companies sold on to somebody else who may not pay as much tax here because they are not a wholly owned United Kingdom company.
On maximising economic recovery and exploration, even though we have a super-mature basin we should still be doing exploration; there is more that we can do. I think someone from Statoil said to me, “You’re most likely to find oil and gas somewhere you have already found oil and gas.” We should do exploration in those areas. We have better ways of surveying now than ever before, and of trawling through and understanding the data from that surveying, which will be important going forward. Anything the UK Government can do to ensure that exploration continues, even in a super-mature basin, would be welcome.
Claire Perry
I am really enjoying hearing another perspective from the hon. Lady’s fine city. Could I put on record that I am a little mystified about the Scottish Government’s decision to refuse to allow exploration for gas onshore when we know it is there because it is a geologically identical strata? Ultimately, the same operators would be looking to extract it. We can do it safely and in an environmentally secure manner, because that is what we do in Britain, as we have done demonstrably in the North sea basin. I find that an ideological rather than a practical decision.
Kirsty Blackman
What Governments do in any decision is look for best value—the good things and bad things that would come out of it. The Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament decided that fracking will not happen onshore in Scotland, and it is within that Parliament’s rights to take that decision.
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister will get a chance to respond to the debate, and I would appreciate it if she would—
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Mr Sharma. In terms of ideological decisions, the onshore wind decision, taken on a blanket basis across the whole United Kingdom, could be applied flexibly to Scotland, and we would very much like that. There would still need to be a planning process, but it would be great if the blanket ban was not there.
Colin Clark
Almost 50% of turbine applications called into Holyrood to the reporter are then given permission. The hon. Lady just said that the Scottish Government have decided not to allow fracking—as I said in my speech, I think it is nimbyism, frankly, but fair enough, because that is their right—but if local communities and local councils say—
Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) is not responsible for the Scottish Government. Rather than directing questions to the Scottish Government through her, it is better to ask her a relevant question.
Colin Clark
Thank you, Mr Sharma. I will keep my question to the hon. Lady. Does she agree that there is a contrast between the two positions? Can one give permission for turbines that people do not necessarily want in their local community when one may not believe in having fracking in Scotland? Perhaps she does believe in having fracking onshore.
Kirsty Blackman
I do not believe in having fracking onshore in Scotland, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect that. The benefits of fracking are not as big as they are made out to be. Were it to be allowed, it would bring very little in the way of jobs or tax take, and the loss to our communities and the upheaval caused in them would be so significant that it would not balance out those jobs and tax take.
I am incredibly pleased to hear the Minister talk so positively about carbon capture and storage. What happened previously in relation to that was a train wreck—it was horrendous. It was awful how the rug was pulled from under it; I could not be clearer in my condemnation. I recognise that it was not the Minister’s responsibility at the time and I do not blame her in any way for that. I am pleased that she is being so positive.
We need to ensure that, whatever we do on decommissioning decisions and changes to allowances made by the OGA, we do not prejudice future carbon capture and storage opportunities. For example, we should not prematurely decommission a pipeline that could be useful for carbon capture and storage. As we do not yet have a full grasp of what carbon capture and storage technology will look like, it is very difficult for such decisions to be made. However, I ask that whatever is looked at is considered carefully in those terms and that carbon capture and storage is considered when any decommissioning decision is made. Any decision on any of that needs to be made very carefully.
I am also of the opinion that decommissioning, if done right, can bring some jobs and some revenue. However, I do not think it will be the biggest windfall in the entire world. I appreciate the action that the UK Government have taken on decommissioning through the OGA, and I also appreciate what the Scottish Government are doing through the decommissioning challenge fund. All those things are positive.
When I spoke to the Oil and Gas Technology Centre, which I will move on to in a moment, it said something interesting about decommissioning. On some rigs, there is an ability to do enhanced extraction techniques, but it is not possible to do them because of all the stuff on the rig that is doing the current extraction techniques. There is a need for a level of enabling decommissioning; taking off some of the widgets currently on the platform in order to put on new widgets so that the platform can be used to do things, but with different technology on it. There are smart things we can do on decommissioning that will ensure that we have jobs, but also that we have a positive way forward and get the maximum economic recovery out of the North sea.
The issue of STEM, which the hon. Member for Gordon mentioned, is important. I have been concerned as an Aberdonian, feeling the pain and seeing the changes and the negative atmosphere in the city, that we would have a situation in which young people would come through school saying, “No, I don’t want to go into oil and gas,” exactly as he said. The Oil and Gas Technology Centre is encouraging young people to get into STEM. Aberdeen Science Centre is doing similarly cool things to encourage STEM, and so is TechFest, which takes place every autumn. Those are all positive things that are supporting young people into STEM.
We do not have the same problems with the numbers of engineers that the north-east of England does—I have previously been told that it is much more difficult in the north-east of England to find some of the engineering skills that are required, but I could be wrong. That is something we could probably work together on quite positively, sharing the information and the positive things we have been doing on that, to ensure that best practice is shared and lots of people are encouraged into engineering.
As the hon. Member for Gordon said, some of the digitisation skills are important. One of the things I talked about with the Oil and Gas Technology Centre was the transferable skills that people get from studying something such as gaming, with the advanced interfaces they use, and how the virtual reality that can be created from that is incredibly positive and useful.
I have a couple more things to say—I am probably beginning to try your patience, Mr Sharma—and a couple of specific asks for the Minister. First, there is the oil and gas sector deal. I know that she is probably being heavily lobbied on that, but it could not be more important for the industry. We recognise that the Government have been working with the industry on that, and we look forward to that coming through.
Secondly, on the industrial strategy challenge fund, I understand that the bids for wave 3 closed at some point this week. Concern has been raised with me about the length of time the decision-making process will take. That is not so much the time in which funding will come through, but the decision-making process. If no shortlist is created until November, and we are looking at having a shortlist at some point late this year, no decision will be taken until a bit later than that. In reality, the chance that people can employ people and get up and running at the beginning of April next year becomes slimmer and slimmer. The quicker the decision can be taken—not necessarily the quicker the funding can come through—the better for projects being ready to go as soon as possible.
There are a couple more challenges. It is the case that Brexit is a challenge for the industry and that varying suggestions have come out about how much Brexit could cost the industry. I am still concerned about how visas are operating. I do not think the current situation works particularly well. I make a plea for post-study work visas to be brought back for the University of Aberdeen and Robert Gordon University. That would be a huge positive change for us. I know that the pilot took place in three universities in England and has been broadened out slightly, but it still has not come to the two universities in my city, and it would be incredibly positive for our industry.
On another specific offshore industry-type issue, I had a constituent come to me recently who is an EU citizen, but is not eligible to apply for the right to remain because he has spent so much time out of the country working for his oil and gas job that he cannot fulfil the residence requirements. He is a high earner, he pays tax and he is a good contributor to our city, and I am concerned that in these individual cases the Home Office’s policies are obstructive to ensuring that those highly skilled people are able to stay in our city. That is a specific plea.
I have one last specific plea for the oil and gas industry. I have requested a meeting with the Financial Secretary of the Treasury and I hope that will happen in the near future. There is a major issue brewing around customs, because there is something called the shipwork end-use relief that is heavily used by oil and gas operators. Basically, it is a customs relief that occurs for stuff that is going offshore; the stuff is not eligible for the same customs fees that it currently would be, because it is going offshore. I received reassurance from the Financial Secretary that that would continue to be applied post-Brexit, but the action that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is taking contradicts that.
There is a similar issue on manifests. Currently, paper manifests are okay for making a customs declaration, but we are looking at moving to a situation where electronic manifests are required. I understand that is because of changes in EU rules, but post-Brexit, the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill is not the same as the EU customs code, so they will possibly be able to revert to paper manifests, but we are not clear. There is an awful lack of clarity around that, and I am concerned that what the Financial Secretary is saying and what HMRC is saying are not the same.
That is becoming really important, because the changes have to be made in the early summer of this year. Companies are gearing up to make changes on the basis of HMRC guidance that is being contradicted by the Financial Secretary. Any assistance that can be given to ensure that those meetings take place and that clarity is given to companies would be incredibly useful.
The industry is in a good place, which is surprising after everything it has been through. There is a positive future. One of the amazing things it is doing is focusing on decarbonisation. That seems a bizarre thing for the oil and gas industry to do, but it has more of a need to do it, and more of a responsibility to do it, because it is the oil and gas industry. I am pleased that that has been written into what the Oil and Gas Technology Centre is doing, and that all the oil and gas companies, working together in ways they never have before, are positive about looking toward decarbonisation.
There is a positive future for the oil and gas industry. We must get it right. We must continue to encourage companies, we must continue to support and work with organisations such as the Oil and Gas Technology Centre and, when industry bodies and companies come to us and say, “This specific issue is a blockage,” we must look at those specific blockages and ensure that we do what we can to get rid of them, listen to industry and make the changes that are required.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on securing the debate, and it is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
In the last four years, the oil and gas industry in the North sea has come under considerable pressure, and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. The industry has adapted and, while challenges remain, it continues to be a vital component part of the UK’s economic base. It still supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and delivers more than half the nation’s oil and gas. There are up to 20 billion barrels of oil and gas still to recover, and the UK supply chain continues to be a world leader, with unrivalled experience in maximising economic recovery from a mature base. The industry makes a consistent contribution of around £1 billion per annum in tax revenues, and the wider tax contribution from across the supply chain is immense.
The Vision 2035 document confirms that the extraction of oil and gas on the UKCS is not a sunset industry. It has a vital role to play in adding to the UK’s energy security, ensuring a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy and creating highly skilled jobs that we can take around the world.
I will first provide a short overview on the national outlook, its successes in the face of adversity and the immediate challenges that need to be addressed. I shall then focus on the southern North sea off the East Anglian coast, where there are specific and exciting opportunities, although work is required if their potential is to be fully realised for the benefit of both the local and national economies.
I am mindful that, in the southern North sea, different energy sectors operate side by side, cheek by jowl—particularly gas, offshore wind and electricity transmission. I pose the question: should they come together and work as one? I am perhaps running before I can walk in saying that, but I will outline a scenario for how those sectors can work more collaboratively for the benefit of industry, people and the places from which those people come.
Notwithstanding the considerable pressures that the industry has faced in recent years, and while in many respects it is still battered and bruised, it is generally in a good place and there is exciting potential ahead of us. In 2017, UK upstream deals exceeded £8 billion. The UKCS production remains stable, despite some start-up delays and unplanned outages. Average unit operating costs have halved, from around $30 per barrel equivalent in 2014 to $15 in 2017. There were at least five exploration successes last year, with a combined discovery of 350 billion barrels equivalent. Around £5.5 billion of post-tax cash flow was generated on the UKCS—more than in any other year since 2011.
There is considerable potential to build on those successes this year, with at least 12 new developments, worth around £5 billion of capital investment, expected to be sanctioned, and with production forecast to increase by 5%. Set against that backdrop, 62% of supply chain companies surveyed by Oil and Gas UK have a positive outlook for 2018. That said, considerable challenges must be addressed if that potential is to be realised. Just 94 wells were opened up on the UKCS in 2017—the smallest number since 1973. Development drilling has fallen by around 45% in the past two years, with supply chain revenues falling by more than £10 billion from 2014. Despite the cost improvements for the supply chain, average EBITDA—earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation—fell by £1.7 billion from 2014-16. Moreover, cash flow continues to be a major concern.
Even if all the fields discovered last year were developed, the reserve replacement ratio of 0.6 is not enough to sustain production. The fall in investment from 2014-17 means that production decline is likely to increase in the early 2020s. Sustaining efficiency gains is vital if the basin is to continue to attract investment. Moreover, it is important to improve exploration success and the commercial viability of existing discoveries.
A particular challenge that the industry faces, which we have heard about quite a lot today, is to reinvigorate the supply chain and to make it more resilient. It is important that we tackle this task; not to do so would be irresponsible. A strong supply chain will help sustain the industry and will open up significant export opportunities. Operators need to work more collaboratively with their supply chain businesses—sharing information, encouraging innovation and looking at new working practices. Addressing this challenge should be part of the sector deal, and the Oil and Gas Authority and the Government should work with the industry to help promote a new approach to collaborative supply chain working. Much can be learned from other industries, such as car manufacturing in the north-east and the west midlands.
Since 2012, the Government have generally worked well and closely with the sector, improving the fiscal regime and thereby helping to attract inward investment. That will continue as the driving investment programme is delivered. However, while Government policy is supportive, a number of decisions by HMRC—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North touched on—have been taken without full and proper consideration of the impact on the oil and gas industry.
A particular example, as the hon. Lady mentioned, is HMRC’s decision in January to end long-standing exemptions for shipwork end-use relief from July of this year. For the oil and gas sector, this exemption—known as CIP33—provides relief from customs duties for equipment that is destined to be used in offshore installations, such as spare parts. The decision was taken at short notice, with no consultation with the industry.
Kirsty Blackman
The other thing that particularly concerned me about this was that I received a letter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that directly contradicts the decision taken by HMRC, which confused the issue further. The two appear to be giving totally different guidelines on this. It would be great to have clarity.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Lady for reinforcing that point. It is difficult to attract investment, and the Government have worked very hard to make this basin one of the most attractive in the world to invest in, but these sort of noises coming out of HMRC reverberate around the world. A solution needs to be found very quickly.
While much of the industry’s focus in recent decades has been on Scotland, when exploration started on the UKCS in 1960s it did so in the southern North sea. That area is now on the verge of a renaissance, with the opportunity of reinventing itself as an all-energy basin, which, with the right policies in place, can play a significant role in the UK’s future energy strategy.
The southern North sea is at a critical juncture. For more than 50 years, the basin has developed and delivered strong gas production through a diverse network of offshore platforms, pipelines and onshore terminals. The basin has been well exploited, and the opportunity to identify and develop large, landmark discoveries is increasingly limited. There is potential with both marginal pools and tight gas, but they are increasingly expensive and complex to access, the technical and commercial risks are high and opportunities can often be quickly disregarded as uneconomic.
The challenge for the southern North sea is now to search for innovative business and technical solutions. This challenge is made more difficult by depressed commodity prices, aging infrastructure and increasing unit transportation costs, as production from existing developments continues to decline. The selection of projects is based on their ability to have a big impact, their prospect of success and the potential to achieve it within a reasonable timescale.
There are currently five priorities in the southern North sea. The first is to realise the full potential of decommissioning opportunities for the benefit of the East Anglian region, which I will come on to in more detail in a moment. The second is to unlock potential tight gas developments. The third is to realise the full potential of the synergies between renewables and oil and gas. The fourth, in the light of Brexit, is to find the best way to work across borders with the Dutch sector. The final one is to minimise production losses due to salting.
It is estimated that 40 platforms in the southern North sea are to be decommissioned by 2022; as I said, it is the oldest part of the basin. That business is worth several billion pounds, with significant job safeguarding and enormous earnings potential for the East Anglian region. However, there is a real and present danger that we will lose much of that work to our European neighbours, where port infrastructures have received investment from their Governments.
East Anglia does not have a level playing field on which to compete with our main competitors in the southern North sea—as I said, on the other side of the sea. Locally, the councils, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership and other supporting agencies, such as the East of England Energy Group, stand ready to support the industry, but there is a need for central Government to get involved and back them if we are to realise for the region the full potential of that significant opportunity.
We need a decommissioning challenge fund similar to that in Scotland, to help to establish a cluster of expertise, as is happening in Dundee with the Tay cities deal. We need to have an aspirational UK local content policy, as already happens with offshore wind. That would help to ensure a return to UK plc, as the Government are already funding between 50% and 75% of UK decommissioning. It would focus operators’ attention on using the local supply chain and would help to support the supply chain action plans that have recently been introduced for decommissioning projects. As I said, EEEGR is willing—it is indeed eager—to lead and to host a taskforce to spearhead that initiative. It would be match-funded by other local agencies, although it would need funding from central Government to establish and then help to maintain it.
The other opportunity in the southern North sea with exciting potential is closer collaboration and working between the oil and gas, offshore wind and offshore transmission sectors. If that can be achieved, a significant contribution can be made to addressing the UK’s ongoing energy trilemma of keeping costs to consumers affordable, ensuring security of supply and smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. We need to integrate energy production activities—for example, in respect of oil, gas and electricity—and share common infrastructure for distributing energy. Doing that will achieve significant economic benefits. The co-location of gas-powered electricity generation with gas production hubs would help to maximise the economic recovery from gas fields. The better utilisation of common infrastructure would improve the economic value of both the associated renewable and the hydrocarbon production assets. Collaboration between those sectors is slowly improving and could be accelerated by facilitating and enabling Government policies.
Two main issues are inhibiting more effective collaboration between the sectors. First, the regulatory regimes are quite separate; some of the regulators are not used to working together and they have different policy objectives. Secondly, cross-sector collaboration is not incentivised, as Government policy is highly sectorised.
A possible starting point for improving the situation and promoting cross-sector collaboration would be consideration of the UKCS as an energy basin, rather than a series of separate energy sectors. That integration could be the specific responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, albeit delivered through parties such as the OGA, National Grid, Ofgem and the Planning Inspectorate.
The three sectors would also benefit from incentives to work more collaboratively. Sector deals provide an opportunity to make it more attractive for the different sectors to work together, at both the developmental and the operational stages. That could include financial support for cross-sector innovation, improved regulatory cohesion, facilitating the movement of workforce skills between the sectors, and research and development. It may well be that a pilot could be set up for such innovative cross-sector working in the North sea. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Minister, along with industry representatives.
During the past 50 years, oil and gas extraction on the UKCS has brought enormous benefits to the UK. It has created hundreds of thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs, attracted significant inward investment from all over the globe and provided a huge annual dividend to the Exchequer. The past four years have probably been the most difficult in the basin’s life, yet notwithstanding a great deal of pain and personal anguish, it has come through this tough period in better shape than could reasonably have been hoped for and is ready to continue to play a full and leading role in the post-Brexit economy.
Since 2012, the Government have given the industry a very fair hearing and backed it, both fiscally and with the creation of the Oil and Gas Authority. Exciting opportunities lie ahead. It is important that the spirit of co-operation in the oil and gas supply chain continues, improves and, as I have outlined, extends to cross-sector working. It is said that if you go to any oil and gas basin around the world, you will hear Scottish, Geordie, Suffolk and Norfolk accents. We must ensure that that continues for at least 50 or—dare I say it?—100 more years.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and, although he is no longer in his place, the interventions of the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).
Before I was elected to this place last year, I myself spent 25 years working in the oil and gas industry, as many of our constituents still do. This is still a hugely significant sector for employment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon mentioned. It still employs 300,000 people around the UK. Many of those people, from around the UK and, indeed, the rest of the world, have made their home in north-east Scotland. As a result, even with the downturn in recent years, unemployment in that part of the country is still very low, at about 1.2%. That sometimes creates an issue for businesses and industries in general when they wish to expand, but for local society it is a nice problem to have.
Many people rightly think of Aberdeen as the oil capital of Europe. I spent the best part of 10 years of my career working in Aberdeen—most of which while living there, but some while commuting from my hometown of Turriff, 35 miles away, where I grew up and where I returned to live after working overseas in the oil and gas industry in the countries of Azerbaijan and Angola. That illustrates the global nature of this industry and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney finished by saying, reminding the world of the expertise that this country still has to offer and will continue to offer is very important.
Many people still commute to Aberdeen from around north-east Scotland. They commute from major towns in my constituency—Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Banff, Macduff and my own town of Turriff—as well as from everywhere in-between. In some cases, people travel up to 50 miles from around north-east Scotland to Aberdeen. Of course, in many occupations, which are often office or desk based, there can be the opportunity to work from home—a practice that is becoming more and more common, but which often relies on a dependable broadband signal: sadly, not always available in rural north-east Scotland or elsewhere around the country.
The idea of working from home has traditionally seemed strange or been difficult for some people to get their head around. The same thing applies to much of the “new” technology mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. In many cases, the technology itself is not particularly new; what has taken longer to change is the culture and behaviours required to get the most out of the technology.
For example, the technology to operate sophisticated offshore installations from onshore has existed since the Forties field came on-stream in the mid-1970s. In fact, it was originally designed to be run from onshore, but that was never quite made to work. Only in recent years has that technology been made to work practically and effectively. That illustrates the recent developments and the developments that we hope to see in the near future.
The oil and gas industry is a major employer in Banff and Buchan, as is the supply chain that supports it. Peterhead is famous as a fishing port, of course; hon. Members have no doubt heard me mention that many times before. However, it is also a major supply port for offshore oil and gas. The Forties oil pipeline, supplying 30% of the UK’s oil, comes ashore at Cruden Bay in my constituency. Also in my constituency is the St Fergus gas terminal, through which 25% of the UK’s gas is received. North sea gas also supplies the power station in Peterhead.
Peterhead power station was a proposed site for the development of carbon capture and storage, but of course one of the many reasons why that was, unfortunately, abandoned, was the absence of surrounding infrastructure. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stockton North is not here to intervene at this point, because Teesside has the surrounding infrastructure that we do not necessarily have in north-east Scotland, unfortunately.
Peterhead is also the location of the Score Group headquarters. Score Group is one of the largest employers in my constituency—across the north-east of Scotland, indeed. It consists of 20 different companies across five continents and is one of the biggest employers of apprentices in the whole of Scotland.
The future of the oil and gas industry is positive, as many hon. Members have said, but there needs to be flexibility and openness to change. The Government have supported that, which is most welcome. Transferable tax history was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. That was a great good-news story from last year’s Budget and shows how important it is that we continue to speak up for the oil and gas industry.
It is also great to see support for decommissioning, which is a growth industry with huge potential. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it is like the original installation to begin with, but in reverse. It is like manufacturing: the biggest and most expensive part of it is in the design and strategising. However, we do not need to go looking for the raw material. It is there and we know where it is. It is a great opportunity for Aberdeen, the north-east and the UK in general to become known as a global centre of excellence for decommissioning. I was pleased to hear Maersk recently announce that it is establishing a new, dedicated decommissioning company, with offices in Aberdeen, to make the most of the opportunities our North sea assets provide. That could be a great boost for the Aberdeenshire economy, with close to £40 billion in decommissioning projects up for grabs over the next eight years.
While decommissioning opportunities are inevitable from the more than 400 fields that have ceased—or will cease—production, the industry is far from dead. For example, I found out yesterday that 27% of BP’s new exploration is taking place in the North sea. I formerly worked for BP and I remember a time when BP felt that it was looking for the least expensive basins around the world to operate in. It had the economies of scale to be able to do that at a large scale. However, BP also always described the North sea and the UKCS as a whole as its own backyard. It is great to see it coming back. Unit operating costs have reduced significantly since 2014 from $30 a barrel equivalent to around $15 in 2017.
The UKCS is still one of the most expensive basins in the world to operate. However, investors and the industry are relatively comfortable investing in North sea oil and gas for other reasons, such as security, stability and access to some of the best, brightest and experienced talent in the industry. Other hon. Members have mentioned other aspects that make this basin more attractive to invest in and how we should make it as attractive as possible.
The Oil and Gas Technology Centre, partly funded by the Aberdeen city and region growth deal, is a great example of how the industry is coming together, not only to fix the inefficiencies and maximise recovery, but to transform the industry for tomorrow. Last year £37 million was co-invested in industry-led projects by the OGTC, with £22 million of that coming from industry partners—more than three times what had been originally expected when the OGTC was set up. Much of that contribution from industry partners has been in kind, as well as direct cash funding. The industry has provided resources such as personnel, as well as access to rigs and platforms for the important field trials to test and optimise the new technology.
The partnership between OGTC, Oil and Gas UK and the OGA—all of which have been mentioned—as well as the different operators and suppliers in the industry, would have been almost unthinkable not that long ago, in my experience. Since the recent downturn, the industry has experienced a modest, yet encouraging recovery, but the industry has been forced to look inwards and across, including across sectors such as renewables, which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned. In my experience, there was always a need for greater collaboration across the industry and sectors. I am glad to say that this is becoming more evident.
I hope that mistakes made in previous recovery phases from previous downturn cycles are not repeated. Too often, we have not gone beyond seeing the green shoots, but when we are actually back in full recovery mode and the pendulum has swung right back to the triple-figure oil prices, we have gone back to the same old inefficient behaviours. Again, we are seeing more evidence that through recent collaboration and Government support, there is a lot less chance of that happening.
Partnering with the industry and bodies such as Oil and Gas UK and the OGA, the OGTC is looking to use the latest technology to transform the oil and gas industry for our low-carbon future. I would like to see the Government do all they can to support this transformation for tomorrow. I understand that the OGTC applied for the industrial strategy challenge fund, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, as recently as yesterday. As she mentioned, we hear that decisions on that are not due until November, but I take this opportunity to encourage the Minister to look closely at what it is proposing and accelerate that decision, if at all possible. Even if only a decision of additional funding can be made well in advance of the funding being made available, it would allow planning and budgeting to take place in the nearer term.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the contribution of North sea oil and gas to our economy is not a spent force. Oil and Gas UK has predicted that hydrocarbons will still be providing two-thirds of the total primary energy by 2035. It represents a huge economic opportunity for the UK, particularly in Scotland, but requires industry and Governments to work together to foster the partnership and collaboration I have mentioned, and in many ways continue to develop new and innovative ways of thinking, not just new technology.
Finally, it should be noted—it has been already—that hydrocarbon exploitation is not just about providing energy, although that is an important factor. The UK Government are doing great work in reducing the amount of single-use plastic that the nation uses, but we still have a need for oil and gas as a feedstock for multi-use plastics in the foreseeable future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. There have been only three speeches by Back Benchers and several interventions by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Perhaps it would have been better if more people could have been here to participate; I suspect that the fact that it is Thursday afternoon has something to do with it. However, the good thing is that that has allowed much more informed speeches to be delivered, without time constraints. That is to the benefit of what we have heard today. I never seem to get the luxury of speaking from the Back Bench without a time limit and not having to use my red pen.
First, we heard from the hon. Member for Gordon. There was not much that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and I would disagree with. Typically for a Westminster Hall debate, everybody spoke in unison about the importance of this sector and its bright future. However, I do not think the hon. Member for Gordon had to defend himself for using the phrase “the north-east”. He should not have to stand up and clarify that he meant the north-east of Scotland. If he wants to call it the north-east, he should stick with that and not defend himself.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there are 233 companies in his constituency alone working in the oil and gas industry. That is a fantastic statistic, which shows the importance of the sector to his constituency and the wider Aberdeenshire area. He correctly said that the oil and gas industry should not be seen as a stopgap measure while we decarbonise the economy and that it still has a bright future. I echo that sentiment. He highlighted the resilience of the industry, which is why it still has that bright future.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the skills gap and the need for training, so I am sure he will welcome the fact that the Scottish National party provided an apprenticeship guarantee while the industry was going through a hard time, as well as a £12.5 billion innovation fund. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North both mentioned the issue that people leaving school and looking into future careers might be concerned about moving into the industry. I echo what they said: there needs to be a drive for the educational understanding that there is still a bright future—an engineering future, with actual opportunities. That is true not just in the UK, but in other countries, as we heard from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who undertook employment abroad and saw the different cultures and experiences that that brings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North and I disagree with the hon. Member for Gordon on fracking. I also clearly support the SNP Government’s taking the decision to ban fracking. It must be remembered that it was done on a cross-party basis. The Labour party and the Lib Dem party support it, and on a wider basis the Green party supports it as well. The hon. Gentleman said that our position is nimbyism, but I would suggest that it is not. The fracking ban has widespread public support in Scotland, and lobby groups elsewhere in the UK would like to see fracking banned. That is before it comes to their doorsteps, if it even does, so that is not nimbyism—it is about people who have concerns about fracking.
I understand that there are some similarities between fracking and the technologies used in the offshore oil industry, as the Minister highlighted, but they are not completely the same; I got a briefing paper from the Library when a constituent raised concerns about why we were banning fracking while still allowing offshore extraction. There are differences. The modern fracking technology was developed from 1999 onwards in Texas—that shows it is different from the offshore technology; they were developed at different times. Interestingly, it was developed in Texas, but Texas has now banned fracking. That tells us that there are widespread concerns across the world. The Minister said this is ideological, but it is not. The Scottish Government took an evidence-based decision, and they stand by it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North agreed with most things that the hon. Member for Gordon said. She highlighted that one aspect we have seen with the dip in the oil price is that the fat in the system has been trimmed out, and that that needs to be captured. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan touched on that as well, while also speaking about the work of the Oil and Gas Technology Centre.
My hon. Friend, like other hon. Members, highlighted the importance of Vision 2035 and of allowing developing companies to grow further and to retain their expertise and investment in the UK, rather than being sold off. That is a very important point. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about resilience in the supply chain. Helping these companies to grow would clearly help the supply chain and the industry’s sustainability.
My hon. Friend finished with what she said were a couple of asks of the Minister. I am a wee bit concerned that, as our economy spokesman, she miscounted the number of asks. It was more than couple! I counted that she asked for: support for a sector deal for the oil and gas industry, which every other hon. Member mentioned; the challenge fund decision; post-study work visas; and consideration of the right to stay regarding the residence of some people who are working abroad. She also highlighted the issue with customs. I think that was more than two asks, but I support her in them.
The hon. Member for Waveney said that there are still half a billion barrels to recover. He highlighted the importance of Vision 2035, and that there has been a drop in development drilling. We need to ensure that picks up for the future. He supported the sector deal and understandably focused on the East Anglian coast and what he called the “southern North sea”. It was a thoughtful contribution regarding the possible collaboration between the different sectors—oil and gas, offshore wind and transmission—and the co-location for generation. That should certainly be looked at. I like the concept of seeing that area as an energy basin and a resource. I would support that.
It was good to hear that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has experience of working in the industry. There is nothing better than parliamentarians who can share expertise and insider knowledge of an industry to help to do policy development in a more informed manner. He touched on Peterhead power station in his constituency and said that one of the issues with the carbon capture scheme was not having the surrounding infrastructure. To me, that suggests a policy deficiency. Allowing the development of a potential carbon capture and storage scheme in that location and then pulling the plug without getting to the end, capturing the knowledge and developing the technology that could be applied elsewhere, is a weakness of the Government. They should reflect on that. He highlighted the benefits of not returning to inefficient working practices. I am sure the industry wants to ensure it does not do that.
As other hon. Members have said, there is no doubt that oil and gas has been a success story for both Scotland and the wider UK. There has been a long history with onshore oil. It was first discovered and extracted in Scotland in 1851. Then in 1896, England discovered natural gas. I would just like to point out that, yet again, Scotland was ahead of the curve when it came to hydrocarbons. In fact, fracking was invented in Scotland. Towards the end of the 19th century, fracking was undertaken in the firth of Forth; but we have seen the light and changed our ways, and I support the Scottish Government’s ban.
I will concentrate my remarks on the offshore oil industry in the North sea and Aberdeen area. It has been developed since the 1960s and has been a great success story, which has turned Aberdeen into a global city. It has provided well-paid careers for people and has allowed many, such as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, to seek adventures and opportunities abroad. It has also allowed Scottish and UK companies to develop their expertise here and then move abroad. They then develop that expertise abroad, which channels money and resources back to the UK.
The oil and gas industry has been so successful that it has generated approximately £330 billion in production tax alone for the UK Treasury. However, at this point I will bring a bit more negativity to the debate. Some of that money has been frittered away. We do not have the legacy from it that we should. Aberdeen’s infrastructure is a case in point.
My hon. Friend mentioned the construction of the western bypass. That could have been done years ago. We could have channelled some of this money into that years ago. If I was to start with a blank sheet of paper and plan how to exploit the natural resources of the North sea using Aberdeen as a hub, a motorway network extending to Aberdeen would be built. That is money going to the Treasury that could be spent better. I am sure that Members from the north-east of England would say the same. The motorway network up the north-east of England took too long to develop. Meanwhile, while oil was generating significant money, we built the channel tunnel to France and a high-speed rail link from London to the channel tunnel. Yet the infrastructure in the north of England and in Scotland was sadly lacking. There was a deficiency, with the money going to the Treasury but not being distributed across the UK.
We should also have had an oil fund. The answer to that request has been a consistent no from the UK Government. Yet Norway’s oil fund, which was started in only 1990, sits at £780 billion. That is a fantastic legacy. Norway is also using and investing it wisely. It has the highest proportion of electric vehicles in Europe. It has invested massively in the renewables sector. It is decarbonising the economy while still wisely managing its oil and gas resources. That is forward planning that the UK Government could still do. We need to look at that.
Colin Clark
The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the population of Norway is 3 million, 4 million or 5 million people. He also has to recognise that the economy is significantly smaller. The whole of the United Kingdom—the different parts of it—has benefited from the moneys that we have made from the North sea. Those have been invested, predominantly economically, and have paid for the downturns while the British economy was not doing so well. I think that it is a bit unfair to make that contrast. Blessed Norway has almost twice the reserves that we have, so there is a contrast in terms of population and investment.
Alan Brown
I will come to the management of the downturn, but I think the hon. Gentleman has helped to make the case for an independent Scotland, so I thank him for that. I was not going there; I would not have touched on an independent Scotland, but I thank him. I still stand by the fact that, in my opinion, the money was going to the UK Treasury and was not distributed to the areas that were generating the wealth.
Interestingly, when it comes to fracking, in 2015 the UK Government promised a shale wealth fund of up to £1 billion for the north of England where fracking is proposed. Perhaps that is a lesson learned. It reinforces the omission of not setting up an oil fund for the benefit particularly of Scotland and other areas of the UK that extract oil and gas.
In Scotland we became used over the years to the scare stories about oil running out before yet again we discovered new oilfields. If we want to talk about not seeing it as a stopgap measure, we obviously need to watch how politicians talk about oil reserves. I certainly appreciate that everyone in this room has been very positive about the reserves that are there, the amount that could still be extracted and the future of the industry. However, other politicians sometimes try to exploit the concept that oil is running out, and we need to be careful about that.
David Duguid
It should be recognised, as I tried to point out in my speech, that it is fair to say that the easiest oil and gas low-hanging fruit to get has been got. There is a future for oil and gas, but, as I said, we cannot use the same behaviours and technologies as before, which is why it is important for Governments and industry to pursue the developments in technology and changes in behaviour required in future to exploit what is left, which is not so easy to get as what came before.
Alan Brown
I do not disagree. Clearly, the industry has shown a lot of innovation over the years and will continue to do so, and obviously it needs to do so to get additional extraction. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North gave the example of partial decommissioning to allow the technology to be input for enhanced extraction. That is something that industry is looking at now, and I am sure it will continue to innovate.
We know that prices can be volatile; we have had to deal with that over the years. Oil bottomed out at just under $12 a barrel in 1997 before rising rapidly to $91 a barrel by 2008. That was under a UK Labour Government. If I go back to legacy issues, I wonder what happened with that money, because there was no way oil projections at that time were going to be based on the oil price increasing dramatically. It was such a windfall with that massive increase in price, but I do not think we have seen the benefits of that, either.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about managing the downturn, we have been consistently told that we need the broad shoulders of the UK, but if we look at the support that the UK Government have implemented in the past few years, the spring 2016 Budget reduced the supplementary charge back to 10%, which was a welcome measure. The Red Book predicted that that would cost £1 billion, and yet nearly three times that was given away in inheritance tax to millionaires. That shows skewed priorities.
In the spring 2017 Budget, there was nothing specific for the oil and gas industry, except one paragraph promising another discussion paper. However, it did confirm the lowering of corporation tax. Despite what everybody says about how it grows the economy and creates more tax, the Red Book predicted that that would cost the Treasury £24 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. That was the Government’s Treasury prediction. Let us think what could be done with that £24 billion in terms of infrastructure investment or additional support for the oil and gas industry. In my opinion, it was a lost opportunity.
In the November 2017 Budget, a measure was introduced: transferable tax history. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said, that was genuinely welcome. It is predicted to bring an additional £70 million in revenue to the Treasury, so it was not a difficult decision. That decision supports industry, but it helps the Treasury, so it should have been taken long before. We are still awaiting the appointment of the oil and gas ambassador first promised by David Cameron in January 2016, so the Government really need to provide additional support for the industry.
Yesterday I raised this matter in the debate on industrial strategy. The oil and gas sector deal has been supported by every colleague here today, but I was disappointed that the ministerial response from the Despatch Box yesterday never mentioned the oil and gas industry or Scotland and did not pick up on the point that I had made, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I hope today’s Minister will respond. I am sure she is working on the oil and gas sector deal and is positive about it, but it would be good to have that confirmation.
I must repeat my disappointment about the pulling of the CCS fund. That must be a lesson for the Government going forward because it scared the industry and scares away other people trying to make private investment. Again, the Minister has spoken positively about the future of CCS, so it would be good to hear her reinforce that when she sums up.
I appreciate time is moving on, Mr Sharma, so I will try to hurry up, but I want to mention another renewable energy project that has been developed at Grangemouth and would support the Grangemouth refinery: the Grangemouth renewable energy project, which has been successful in the CfD auction. Because it contains biomass, the whole premise of the project is based on securing renewable heat incentive funding as well. The UK Government are looking at retrospectively capping the amount of RHI funding available to projects to 250GWh. That would put the Grangemouth renewable energy project at risk, so I urge the Minister to reconsider, because the project is so innovative. It is a world leader, it would support the Grangemouth refinery, and it could develop industry for export and help grow the UK economy.
We have heard some impressive contributions. All have concluded that the oil and gas industry has a bright future, and I certainly echo that. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I concur with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on securing the debate, which has been informed and thoughtful, with excellent contributions. Although we have had a not overwhelming turnout this afternoon, as the Minister reminded me on a previous occasion, there are still two speeches to go, so I hope that my contribution will be up there with those who have already spoken this afternoon.
On where the oil and gas industry is right now, I heartily concur with hon. Members that the outlook at the moment looks much better than had been thought possible a few years ago. Indeed, looking at Oil and Gas UK’s “Business Outlook” for 2018, there are substantially more greens and yellows than there have been for a long time, particularly in relation to production, new field approvals, liquids production, capital expenditure and so on. That is a credit to the way in which the industry has cut its costs, increased its efficiency and got itself much better organised in terms of what will be a very different future for the UK continental shelf than has been the case in the past. That change in approach heralds a brighter future not only for 2018, but for a longer period, because of the change in approach. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) reminded us, the circumstances will not be characterised by, to put it bluntly, hoping for another Brent find.
The future is going to be different. It is, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, going to be about looking at small pools, at how exploration can advance without there being a bonanza of new fields, and at consolidation of what already exists. As the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan reminded us, it is also a question of decommissioning, and how thoughtfully we go about the process. Oil and gas is not an industry where we can just talk about various spending estimates—£35 billion, £50 billion, or whatever. There is a question of decommissioning in such a way that the process for the possible future exploitation of small pools is maintained, rather than taking all the infrastructure away and feeling bad when it comes to getting on with things subsequently because, lo and behold, the infrastructure that could help is gone. The emergence of the OGA and the success that it has already had is an important element in getting some of those issues right for the future, with a greater sense of co-ordination and understanding within the process in the next period.
In other circumstances I might have said that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North had stolen a lot of what I was thinking of saying, but I know it is a coincidence because anyone who knows my office will also know that I am the only person who knows where my notes are, among the huge pile of papers. Nevertheless, she has articulated many of the themes that I wanted to talk about, particularly how we can ensure that the UK continental shelf has a bright future not just because of oil and gas but beyond them. That includes what we are doing to ensure that carbon capture and storage can be advanced. I believe that could happen in the UKCS, not just with a UK repository but also possibly, in the future, a European one. That would also mean being very careful about what was done in decommissioning, to facilitate rather than downgrade that future industry.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous)—I keep wanting to call him my hon. Friend, but convention in this place does not quite allow me to go that far—made a thoughtful contribution. He will know from the various Committees and other bodies that we have both been on that the opportunity for carbon capture and storage in different forms of gas use has the potential to be important for the future of the UKCS. His suggestion that we can see the UKCS as an entity for energy as a whole was an important thought, and I hope that we shall pursue it. Indeed, my actual hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned that there are other practical things to be done by way of decommissioning to produce not just opportunity but infrastructure for industries of the future in the North sea.
I want to give the hon. Member for Gordon an assurance. I do not think it was deliberate, but he chanced on a characterisation of some of those who consider the climate change debate to be an imperative in considering the future of oil and gas in the North sea—that those people would suggest that oil and gas should not have a bright future there. That is not the case. I regard the climate change imperative as encompassing all that we do in connection with energy, as I think does the Minister. However, that does not mean there is not a long-term need for oil or gas; there is a need for both. The question is not whether we have the need, but what we do with the stuff once we have got it, and what sort of responsibility we take for its subsequent use.
An example, which the hon. Member for Waveney will well recall, is the future arrangements that we might have for decarbonising the gas system. One way might be to develop a hydrogen gas economy—a green gas economy—for heating our homes. The cheapest and most efficient way to produce the necessary hydrogen would be through a steam methane reforming system, and that of course needs gas. We can envisage circumstances in which we would take gas from the North sea and make hydrogen from it—possibly in the Teesside cluster that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North described—and, to make sure that it would be climate-efficient, the process would need CCS as well. The carbon captured in the hydrogen-making process would be put back into the North sea repositories, which would have been saved by efficiency in the decommissioning process. By a variety of devices, we could have different ways of using what we had to secure a bright future for the North sea, but it would not necessarily be the bright future that we envisaged hitherto.
It is important to be clear about our intentions for what we extract from the North sea—that what we use should be domestically sourced as far as possible. That would be good news for the UK as a whole, but we would also have the wider responsibility of the climate change imperative behind us. We need to think through what we will do with our North sea products and, on that basis, how we shall sustain the industries that have served the UK so well in the past 40 years or so. I am not one of those who says, “The North sea is finished; it is a mature basin.” There is quite a lot more to get out of that basin. We must do that in rather different ways, with rather different responsibilities, but provided we take that approach the bright future for the North sea and the oil and gas industry there is assured. I hope that we can work together on achieving that in the coming years.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I also thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee and its Clerks, who have provided us with an opportunity for an excellent debate. I agree that this was a quality debate, not a quantity one, and perhaps if we had more of those we should all be the better for it. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark)—and he is a friend—on securing the debate, and on an exemplary speech. It was thoughtful, detailed, clear and extremely well informed. Clearly he and other hon. Members in the Chamber have a strong constituency interest, and we debate the issue frequently because we are all passionate about the oil and gas industry and agree about the great value that it brings to the local and national economies.
I asked for and was able to keep the oil and gas brief when I became the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth because I think it is an integral part of the transition to a lower-carbon economy, as well as an enormous provider of productive employment and benefits to the economy, historically and in the future. It was striking to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who perfectly combines those two interests, given his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for renewable and sustainable energy and his frequent strong support for the industry.
We also heard excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who cares passionately about the issue and speaks up for it frequently; from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who I was delighted to hear, because it is always wonderful to hear from somebody who actually knows what they are talking about—we all know what we are talking about, but some of us know more than others—from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who gave a typically doughty defence of Scottish independence and managed to slip in some telling points that I will respond to; and from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who I seem to spend a lot of time debating such matters with.
I will not detain hon. Members too long, because it is a lovely sunny afternoon, but I will make a couple of important points. I and the Government fully recognise the importance of the industry to the UK, historically, currently and in the future. It has been an enormous provider of revenue to the Treasury, of centres of excellence in terms of innovation, and of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
It is striking that in the past few years, we have stopped talking about the industry as a declining force, and started to talk again about the opportunities for it in the North sea and other areas. We have now realised that we can integrate those fuels into a lower-carbon economy. There are also incredible opportunities, such as decommissioning, which we in the UK can own as the world faces the same questions about the future of the industry.
There are encouraging estimates of what is left. Vision 2035 has led industry to say that there are between 10 billion and 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent left in the continental shelf, which could be worth up to £1 trillion. If we continue to responsibly explore and extract those hydrocarbons, use them in the most economically effective and responsible way, and work on decarbonisation, there is a great opportunity for north-east Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom.
The challenge of the security of supply has been interesting in the past few months. The beast from the east, the changes to storage facilities in the UK and the discussions about diplomatic relations with other major gas-producing nations have led to conversations about the security of supply that we have not heard in the past few years.
In fact, indigenous gas production meets 46% of our gas demand and contributes to the balance of trade. We are clear that we have robust gas security for the future, but we may be able to increase the effective extraction of gas from the UK. I do not want to make the debate about hydraulic extraction, but I am convinced that we must soberly test the science, as we are doing through the exploratory phrase, to understand the size of the opportunity and whether it can be extracted, not in a wild west, Texan sense—that is not how we do business in the North sea base or anywhere else—but in the most environmentally responsible manner in the world. We want to test that. We have to be clear that that makes an important contribution to our energy security and our future economic prosperity.
As has been mentioned, I jumped on a plane as soon as I could and went straight up to Aberdeen—I did not drive up the motorway network, because it was not there, and it would have been a long way from Devizes even if it was. Aberdeen is a wonderful city and an amazing place to visit. Looking at the productivity map of the UK, the contribution that fishing, originally, and now this extraction have delivered is clear.
It was heartening to sit down with people from the Oil and Gas Technology Centre at the Oil and Gas Authority and talk to them about what they have been through. It has been a very tough time. They would say that they perhaps took decisions a little hastily—unfortunately, there have been job losses in the local economy—but as a result of going through that trial, the industry is in a better place than ever. It has the resilience to face any future changes in oil prices and an understanding of what it needs to do to build a more sustainable supply chain, and the co-investment that is coming together around the technology institute is very exciting.
It was also heartening to talk to the people from the OGTC about operational decisions, such as how they pulled together through the Forties pipeline interruption to deliver that back on stream more quickly. Of course they will always be competing, but the recognition of what co-working can mean is incredibly impressive.
The OGA has been a driving force for that. I pay tribute to its work, and to that of the offshore petroleum regulator for environment and decommissioning, which never gets enough credit. It is a superb operation with lots of civil servants from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy working extremely hard and doing a very good job of regulating and ensuring the safety of the industry. We are aware of the painful losses that have been suffered and we are determined to work together to make the industry more resilient.
Hon. Members have spoken about the uptick in mergers and acquisitions activity, some of which predated the transferable tax history. I am told by industry that that has been such an important part of getting assets out of the hands of those for whom it might not be economically effective to extract, because they have global interests, and putting them into the hands of smaller operators.
Related to that, there has been an interesting surge in technological investment in things such as reusable tiebacks that enable companies to extract reserves in a more nimble way. That innovation and technology is really exciting. It is excellent that those lobbied-for tax changes, which were passed by a Conservative Government, are delivering. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, there is renewed investment in innovation and drilling—people are getting out there and exploring.
Some of those changes will unfortunately lead to further restructuring and there may be job losses. We all want to build up a healthy ecosystem for the industry that will extend to a broader region and offer additional employment opportunities, particularly in new technology.
The Wood review, which we commissioned, suggested that we should establish a strong independent regulator. That is working well. We are committed to the driving investment principles that have underpinned that success, and we now have a globally competitive tax regime, which places the UKCS in the top quartile globally in terms of post-tax returns.
In total, the Government have provided £2.3 billion of fiscal support to the sector so far. We also committed another £40 million for new seismic acquisition, which has been managed by the OGA, and we co-funded the Oil and Gas Technology Centre through the Aberdeen city deal. I echo the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made about that; it was a brilliant example of co-working. When we put aside our national, local and political boundaries, it is incredible what we can deliver in local areas. That has been a real success.
In response to the debate, I will announce three further things. First, I understand the comments about an ultra-deep water port, which we talked about in our manifesto. We are immediately commissioning a UK-wide scoping study, which will work closely with my Scottish Government counterparts, because they have kicked off a piece of work in Scotland and we want to ensure that we incorporate it. It is important that we look across the UK. If we can get an ultra-deep water port that is economically effective, it could have a material impact on our ability to attract decommissioning business.
Secondly, not for the first time, I listened with concern to the issues about helicopter safety. I understand that it is the only way for people to commute to work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said. I will write to the Civil Aviation Authority to ask it for reassurance that the measures it introduced on helicopter safety are working, and for what further assurances it can give.
Thirdly, on the issue that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and others raised about customs treatment, I will instruct my officials to seek clarity immediately from their Treasury colleagues and to write to the industry and to all hon. Members present by the end of the month, so there can be no lack of clarity about what is required.
We have talked a lot about the industrial strategy. Trevor Garlick has done a fantastic job in getting the sector together and pulling together a series of interesting proposals. As I have said before, we must not define a Government’s willingness to work with an industry on the basis of there being a big-bang sector deal landing on people’s desks. Much of the financial and fiscal support that we have given to the sector is part of a broader sector partnership that we are committed to taking forward. However, there are some very interesting specific proposals in that deal. One that strikes me is for the decommissioning opportunity, which I am very keen to explore quickly and to bring forward. The House has my commitment that we will do that.
I believe we all share the view that environmentally rigorous extraction of oil and more particularly gas, and the use of that fuel, absolutely has a place in our low-carbon transitions. Our current assumptions are that we will continue to use gas. I understand the question of carbon capture and storage; we have debated it before and I will not run through the debate again. I will only say that we now have private sector partners with very deep pockets who are prepared collectively to invest in that technology through the oil and gas climate initiative; we did not have such partners before.
We also understand that we not only need to decarbonise generation; we also have to put that work within a cluster, so that dealing with industrial emissions can be put into the same infrastructure and framework. There are only five places in the world where CCS plants associated with generation are running purely on subsidy alone, which is effectively what we have been asking for. The other 16 places rely on enhanced oil recovery as a revenue source. Even the Norwegians, who have the sovereign wealth fund that we have talked about, find it very difficult to get pure subsidy for CCS through their Parliament. That is why I have set up the carbon capture council, which is headed by the best brains, including some of our friends from north of the border, to try to work out how we improve the technology in a cost-effective way. What is the irreducible core of cost and risk that Government have to take in order to move this technology forward?
The CCS cost reduction task force is specifically looking at cost reduction proposals and also committed £100 million for innovation, because without that technology we will not decarbonise either generation or industrial emissions, and I want us to lead on CCS.
In conclusion, this is a vital—
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way, especially when she is just winding up. I raised the Grangemouth renewable energy project and the possible application of a retrospective cap on the amount of renewable heat incentive money that the project can claim. Is that something that she can reconsider? We do not want to put this project in jeopardy.
Claire Perry
I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me about that, so that I can consider that question and give him a more detailed reply. By the way, if I have missed out any points that were raised during the debate, Members should please feel free to raise them with me and I will try to respond to them.
It has been wonderful to have this debate on such a sunny day. It is 18°C in Aberdeen—I have just checked—so it is a slightly more balmy place than usual for people to head home to. This has been a really fantastic opportunity to reiterate all of our collective support for this industry, which has delivered so much, not only to the north-east of Scotland but to the United Kingdom. I want people to be in no doubt that we are committed to making sure that, yes, we do the economic extraction—I think that I have described it as being down to the last drop—but that we also think carefully about how we use this fuel in a low-carbon economy, and make the appropriate investments in the future. And once again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon for raising this matter in the House.
Colin Clark
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for calling me to wind up.
I am delighted that a few of us managed to come along on such a hot day; usually, in anything above 10°C, the Scots melt. We have managed to hold things together today.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke about helicopters, as did the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), and I was glad to hear what the Minister said about that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) realises the longevity of hydrocarbons, which is important to his constituency and to many of our constituencies.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also discussed the city region deal, which has been very important, and the Oil and Gas Authority, which has been very successful to date. We also spoke about carbon capture and storage opportunities. And she is quite right that we have to be very strategic about the infrastructure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke strongly for the opportunities in the southern North sea, and as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the offshore oil and gas industry, he is living proof that this is a national industry.
Back in the days when my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) had a real job in the oil and gas industry, he made a contribution to the industry, and Banff and Buchan, where so much of the oil and gas is brought on shore, also makes a real contribution.
I very much appreciate the support for the industry from the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokes- person, from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who spoke for Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I am glad of the support for domestic production of oil and gas, which can be part of the solution for protecting the environment.
Also, I thank the Minister for her input to and support for the industry in her dual role for energy and clean growth; it is tremendous that oil and gas are part of her responsibility. We must be clear that we can protect the environment while developing hydrocarbons.
The oil and gas industry is growing, it needs inward investment and I appreciate the support both of the Government and of Members here. It has been a great pleasure working under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma; thank you very much.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK oil and gas industry.
Written Statements
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Diplomatic Network in the Commonwealth
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Global Britain is this Government’s ambition to increase the UK’s national security, prosperity and influence, signalling our resolve to remain a big and influential player on the world stage.
In March, I announced plans to open around 10 new sovereign missions over the next two years, drawing on additional funding granted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enhance our diplomatic capability overseas.
During the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London this week, I will announce the location of nine new missions: six high commissions in Lesotho (Maseru); Swaziland (Mbabane); the Bahamas (Nassau); Tonga (Nuku’Alofa); Samoa (Apia); Vanuatu (Port Vila); and a further three missions, in Antigua and Barbuda (St John’s); Grenada (St George’s); and St Vincent and the Grenadines (Kingstown). These new missions will strengthen the UK’s diplomatic influence in the Commonwealth and help to deliver the UK’s security and prosperity objectives.
This expansion of our diplomatic network in the Commonwealth, which marks the beginning of the UK’s two-year tenure as chair, demonstrates our commitment to making an even greater success of this historic and important network of like-minded friends.
[HCWS625]
Police Funding
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
Following the debate on police funding held in this House on 28 March 2018 and the motion of this House, the Government wish to highlight that they are committed to protecting the public and providing the resources necessary for the police to do their critical work. At the 2015 spending review, the Government protected overall police spending (the combination of Government grants to police and crime commissioners (PCCs), police precept, and spending on national priorities such as the police transformation fund) in real terms. Counter-terrorism police grant was also specifically protected.
Before taking decisions on the 2018-19 settlement, the Government were determined to ensure that we continued to enable the police to respond to changing demands on them. I visited or spoke with every police force in England and Wales to better understand the demands they face and how these can best be managed. I saw for myself the exceptional attitude and hard work of police officers and staff around the country, and listened to the evidence about the genuine increases in demand they are facing.
Crime as traditionally measured by the independent crime survey for England and Wales—widely regarded as the best long-term measure of the crime people experience—is down by more than a third since 2010 and by more than two thirds since its peak in 1995. However, we recognise that there have been material changes in the demands on policing since the 2015 spending review. Demand on the police from crimes reported to them has grown and shifted to more complex and resource intensive work such as investigating child sexual exploitation and modern slavery. At the same time the terrorist threat has changed.
We included four key elements in the police funding settlement for 2018-19 to enable the police to respond effectively: an increase in funding, greater future funding certainty, clear opportunities for substantial improvements in productivity and efficiency, and greater financial transparency to ensure effective use is made of police financial reserves.
Following the spending review in 2015, the Government committed to protecting force-level funding in cash terms over the spending review period, when police precept and Government grant are taken together. The 2018-19 settlement changed this by enabling every PCC to maintain their funding in real terms. This was achieved by a combination of protecting the Government grant to PCCs in cash terms (compared to 2017-18) so PCCs retain the full benefit from any additional local precept income, and increasing flexibility to raise precept without calling a referendum (in England). The vast majority of PCCs used the additional flexibility to increase precept, resulting in an over £280 million increase in funding in 2018-19. In addition, many PCCs have set out proposals to use this extra funding to improve frontline policing.
We are also increasing investment in national policing priorities such as police technology and special grant by around £130 million in 2018-19 compared to 2017-18. This reflects our commitment to support the police to deliver a modern digitally enabled workforce, and to manage major events such as the Commonwealth summit and terrorist attacks. We are maintaining the size of the police transformation fund at £175 million in order to help drive police reform.
Counter-terrorism police is receiving a £50 million (7%) increase in like for like funding when compared to 2017-18, enabling the counter-terrorism budget to increase to £757 million, including £29 million for the uplift in armed policing from the police transformation fund. Once the armed uplift programme is complete, there will be around 7,000 armed officers in England and Wales, which exceeds the number of firearms officers in 2010. This is a significant additional investment in the vital work of counter-terrorism police officers across the country. These specialist armed officers will be better trained and equipped than ever before to deal with the full range of complex terrorist attacks.
Separately, the Home Office has also provided £9.8 million in special grant funding to cover the costs of the police response to the Manchester Arena attack and a further £7.6 million to support the costs in London.
Overall, police funding across the system is increasing by around £460 million year on year, including police precept. The House of Commons debated and voted for the police funding settlement on 7 February, as is done on an annual basis.
The motion debated by the House on 28 March referenced the UK Statistics Authority’s recent work on police funding statements. The Government recognise that police funding is a complex topic and are committed to presenting and explaining police funding clearly. The UK Statistics Authority suggested the Home Office should produce a regular analysis of police funding in line with the principles set out in the code of practice for statistics. The Home Office chief statistician is currently considering how this could be achieved.
Police leaders rightly highlighted to me that one year of additional financial support would not be sufficient to mitigate the challenges the police face. It is also important that PCCs and chief constables can plan effectively. Therefore the Government committed at the police settlement to protect police grant in cash terms, and repeat the additional precept flexibility in 2019-20, so long as significant progress is made this year on efficiency and productivity. This approach gives policing the opportunity to make major improvements in efficiency, and use those gains to improve services to the public.
Efficiency and productivity are essential to a sustainable plan to enable the police to manage challenging demands. Since the police funding settlement, I have been working with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council to agree concrete proposals to save around £120 million through better procurement and use of shared services. We are also working with the police to deliver the benefits of better, digitally enabled working. The motion debated on 28 March called for 10,000 additional officers. The motion did not make reference to efficiency or productivity. If all forces could deliver the same one hour per officer per day of productivity benefits from mobile working as the best in a recent sample with eight forces, this has the potential to free up the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers nationally to provide the proactive policing that committed police officers want to deliver. The Government believe that it is essential that we work with the police to realise these productivity benefits, rather than focusing on extra funding or having a sterile debate on officer numbers alone.
We are also encouraging the police to make effective and prudent use of their financial reserves. As at March 2017 PCCs held usable resource reserves of over £1.6 billion. This compares to £1.4 billion in 2011. Current reserves held represent 15% of annual police funding to PCCs. There are good reasons for holding reserves, including to invest in better ICT to help officers work smartly. However, PCCs’ plans for using their reserves must be robust and open to public scrutiny. That is why we set out new guidance in January requiring them to publish their reserves strategies in plain English, with a clear justification for each reserve held, as well as publishing national information on the level of reserves held.
Taken together, the Government have listened to the police, we have substantially increased police funding in 2018-19, we have demonstrated our complete commitment to protecting the public from terrorism, and we have provided the police with the tools to respond to changing demand.
[HCWS626]
Local Government Finance
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I am writing in response to the Opposition day debate on “Reductions in Local Government Funding” of 28 March and the resolution of the House made that day. This Government recognise the vital role of local government in delivering the frontline services which communities across the country rely on. I am writing to the House to confirm the support this Government are providing to ensure councils have the resources they need to deliver vital local services.
In February, the 2018-19 local government finance settlement set out the resources available to councils in England. This is the third year of a four-year offer which was approved by Parliament, as was the case in both preceding years. The multi-year settlement was also overwhelmingly accepted by councils, 97% of which took up the offer in return for publishing efficiency plans. It has provided greater certainty, allowing councils to plan ahead and secure value for money.
Through the settlement, local government has been given access to £45.1 billion in 2018-19 and £45.6 billion in 2019-20. This is an overall increase since 2017-18 of £1.3 billion. This recognises both the growing pressure on local government’s services and higher than expected inflation levels. For adult social care in particular, a further £150 million was provided for 2018-19, which we expect will help support sustainable local care markets, in addition to the £2 billion announced at spring Budget 2017. With this, and other measures, the Government have given councils access to £9.4 billion dedicated funding for adult social care over three years.
Informed by the representations received from councils, organisations and members of the public, we are ensuring that the sector is equipped to drive economic growth, to think and act creatively and to deliver for their residents. We are clear that is about more than just the funding. Through additional flexibilities and responsibilities, we are responding to the sector’s request for more control over the money they raise as well as the tools to make this money go further.
Local authorities already have a strong incentive to grow their economies through 50% business rates retention and benefit from the additional income that growth in their business rates brings. Over 150 local authorities in 16 pilot areas are incentivised further by retaining 100% of their growth in business rates.
We are also looking towards the future. We are undertaking a review of local authorities’ relative needs and resources to address concerns about the fairness of current funding distributions. The consultation has now closed and my Department is carefully assessing over 300 responses from a wide range of stakeholders. We have sought the views of councils, representative associations and others to capture the key factors which should be included in a new funding formula and we will continue to collaborate with local government on this. We aim to implement its findings in 2020-21.
Local government also has a vital role to play in helping the broken housing market. The recent allocation of £866 million from the housing infrastructure fund for 133 local authority projects will help to deliver some 200,000 additional homes, and we have also announced an additional £1 billion of borrowing headroom to enable local authorities in the highest value areas to build more homes for social and affordable rent.
We further announced last month the 45 areas across England we are working with to develop Forward Funding infrastructure projects, with up to £4.1 billion of funding available to unlock a potential 400,000 homes. These are strategic, long-term projects which will deliver housing not just for now, but for generations to come— creating new settlements, growing places and supporting local authority ambition for growth and regeneration.
This Government remain firmly committed to ensuring local government has the support and resource it needs to deliver its services effectively and efficiently, while protecting hard-working taxpayers from excessive council tax rises.
[HCWS627]
House of Lords
Police: Independent Inquiries
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria must be satisfied for them to establish an independent inquiry into a police investigation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, it is not possible to identify a definitive set of criteria to determine when the Government should establish an inquiry. Inquiries result from a huge variety of events, and each decision has to be taken on its merits.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that the demand for an independent inquiry into the police investigation into Sir Edward Heath is not going to go away? Does she agree that the best thing would of course be for the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner to set up his own independent inquiry? This Tuesday, yet again, he refused point blank to do so. Is not the only option now for the Home Office to set up such an inquiry?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I said the other day, an inquiry of any form should be considered only where other available investigatory mechanisms would not be sufficient. I absolutely concur with this demand, which is repeatedly made from your Lordships’ House. My noble friend is correct that the Wiltshire PCC has it in his power to initiate such an inquiry.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the new independent office of police misconduct have a role in this type of inquiry? It can of course initiate its own inquiries.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I should clarify that it is the Independent Office for Police Conduct rather than misconduct, as the noble Lord knows. The IOPC can investigate a matter referred to it, but it also has call-in powers to require referral. In terms of investigating a police force, the IOPC is independent of government and the Home Secretary does not have the power to direct it to investigate a force or any of its officers. The key functions of the IOPC include providing independent oversight of the police complaints and discipline system, considering appeals when people believe that a police investigation into a complaint has got it wrong, and carrying out its own investigations into the most serious and sensitive matters relating to police conduct.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I understand the concern of noble Lords about the reputation of the right honourable Sir Edward Heath, but what about Bishop Bell, Lord Brittan or Sir Cliff Richard? It pains me to say this, but the police and the media cannot be trusted to comply with their own regulations on this issue. Will the Minister meet me to explore how my upcoming Private Member’s Bill to legally preserve anonymity before charge might be supported by the Government?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am always happy to meet the noble Lord; we meet regularly. I understand all the cases that he talks about, which have gone through various mechanisms of investigation, and am happy to meet him to talk about his Private Member’s Bill.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, is it not the case that the examples which the noble Lord has just made strengthen the case for an inquiry by the Government? Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are legally debarred from setting up such an investigation, or whether they have such powers but have so far chosen not to use them in this case?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Government are not debarred from setting up an inquiry, and there are mechanisms to do so under the Inquiries Act. But as I said to my noble friend, an inquiry of any form should be considered only when other available investigatory mechanisms would not be sufficient. As I explained to him, there are other available mechanisms.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend has just admitted, there is nothing to prevent the Government acting. As the Home Office could do with some good publicity at the moment, could we not have a High Court judge or retired judge appointed to look into the implications of the Edward Heath case, the Brittan case and the Bishop Bell case, because there is profound public unease about all these things?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I stated, the PCC is completely within his powers to initiate such an inquiry.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, further to the correspondence that I drew to the Minister’s attention the other day, we now have access to 10 FoI responses by Macpherson to people in the Wiltshire area. Perhaps I may read one of them:
“Should the Inquiry prove unable or unwilling to take this task on”—
and it has said that it is not willing to take it on—
“I will reiterate my earlier call for the government to establish a judge-led review of the evidence”.
He makes it quite clear there what his position is. That was on 10 October last year, only five days after the publication of the Conifer report. Why do Ministers not bring this man into the department, have a word with him and tell him to get on with the job he was given when he was appointed as the police commissioner for Wiltshire?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I shall certainly take that suggestion forward, to stop myself getting beaten over the head every day over this matter. But more seriously, the noble Lord has very kindly brought to my attention the correspondence received and I have written to the PCC. I have also written to noble Lords, as I said the other day, to make the position quite clear: that he can initiate such an inquiry.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I am a Salisbury boy and proud to be the descendant of four generations of policemen. May I let my noble friend into a little secret? I did not have much time for Ted, either personally or politically, but this is not natural justice. Will she not accept that, if we cannot get to grips with these serial cases of misrepresentation and allegations, it will serve only to undermine genuine attempts to deal with the really serious cases that must be dealt with?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally appreciate my noble friend’s point, but when he talks about this not being natural justice, Ted Heath has not been convicted of anything. Of course he has not; he is deceased. But there is a mechanism to go forward, if an inquiry wishes to take this forward, through the PCC and he is within his powers to do so.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government will not mount an inquiry while there were other ways of doing so. The police and crime commissioner has, regrettably, refused to do so. What other ways are available at present?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There is the mechanism that the PCC is elected, and the people will take a view on how he performs his role when it comes to his future election.
Legal Aid
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure sufficient availability of legal aid.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that the availability of legal aid is an important part of maintaining access to justice. The Government remain committed to targeting legal aid to those who need it, while balancing that with the cost to the taxpayer. As the Lord Chancellor has confirmed, we will conduct an evidence-based review of LASPO and will publish our findings later this year.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am conscious that this is not the first time this Question has been asked, but it is generally acknowledged, in particular by legally trained Chancellors, that the quality of advocacy provided by properly trained barristers is of a significantly higher quality than that which is provided by others in court. Does the Minister agree that not only is the criminal Bar an essential part of the criminal justice system but it also requires adequate fees to function properly?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we agree that the criminal Bar is one of the vital pillars underpinning the rule of law and that its contribution should be fairly rewarded.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, there are two forms of advice desert in relation to the current legal aid system. One is geographic, where legal advice is simply unavailable because there are no longer legal aid practitioners to provide it, and the other is in relation to particularly sensitive and important areas, such as housing or family law, where the number of cases receiving legal help since LASPO has dropped from 200,000 to 40,000 in the last financial year. Will the long-awaited LASPO review address these problems? Do the Government have an open mind in relation to the possible restoration of legal aid and advice currently denied to people of limited means, with the added benefit of reducing the pressure on the courts system from the growing number of unrepresented parties to proceedings?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, with particular reference to housing, at present 133 of the 134 housing and debt procurement areas for legal aid have provision, and in addition there is provision for telephone advice in the context of housing issues that are covered by LASPO. Our review will embrace all the issues that are being raised by interested groups and will take account of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in their respective reports.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, when the Government inquiry takes place, will it please look at the situation of the criminal Bar, which is currently in very real trouble? The noble Baroness made an important point about the very good advocacy of the criminal Bar. It is under real threat and is an issue which the Government have to look at.
Lord Keen of Elie
We are conscious of the contribution that the criminal Bar makes. The noble and learned Baroness is alluding to developments with regard to recent changes to the advocates’ graduated fee scheme. That scheme was developed in conjunction with the profession, in particular the Bar Council. The changes are intended to create a simpler and more modern pay system which better reflects the reality of the work being done. As regards the question of an inquiry, a review by the Lord Chancellor is ongoing and we intend to report on it in the course of this year.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the impact assessment for LASPO anticipated annual savings of £450 million. In fact, annual savings have been running at about £950 million. Last month’s terms of reference for the LASPO review commit the Government to ensuring that legal aid is,
“available to those who need it”.
Given that this aim is clearly not currently being achieved, will the Government make these extra savings of £500 million available to fund any proposals made on the review for extra legal aid spending? Has that been made clear to officials conducting the review within the department?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the coalition Government introduced LAPSO in order to ensure that legal aid was directed at those who most require it. The figure of £950 million arises only in the context of a comparison between 2010 and 2016. In that period, legal aid expenditure fell by about £950 million, or 38% in real terms.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, is it intended that the review will cover third-party litigation funding? Third-party litigation funding is a useful access to justice, but too often the division of any awards of damages between those who provide the funding and those in whose name the cases are being brought are obscure. Would it not be a good idea if the courts had the power to require the disclosure of such terms to ensure fairness between all the parties?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the matter of third-party litigation funding is of course a matter of contract between two parties, and the Government would be slow to interfere in that contractual process.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, further to the excellent question from my noble friend Lord Beecham, will the Government now at last admit that they have denied access to justice to hundreds of thousands of people, with cuts to legal aid taking people with social security, homelessness, mental health and other extremely important issues out of scope; widespread confusion as to who remains eligible; difficulty in proving financial eligibility; and a very damaging fall in the number of legal aid providers? How does the Minister explain the collapse in the number of private practice and not-for-profit organisations undertaking legal aid work? Will the Government now act to restore access to justice as a basic right of citizenship?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we recognise the need for access to justice; it is a fundamental common-law right. We seek to ensure that there is a legal aid scheme that is affordable but allows for access to justice. That scheme is currently the subject of review by the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with that famous saying, “British justice is the best in the world if you can afford it”? Do we not need a different legal system that makes it possible for ordinary people to pursue cases in the courts?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am not familiar with that particular comment.
Children: Obesity
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are planning to reduce childhood obesity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s childhood obesity plan, launched in August 2016, focuses on the areas that are likely to have the biggest impact on preventing childhood obesity. All reports and data on progress in delivering our plan will be published and open to scrutiny. We will use this to determine whether sufficient progress has been made and whether alternative levers need to be considered.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am well aware that we had a pretty comprehensive trot around the issue earlier this week but I did not have the opportunity to raise with the Minister the issue of the Daily Mile, an initiative started some six years ago in a small Scottish primary school where children were encouraged to run for 15 minutes a day, which turns out to be a mile. Since then the initiative has proliferated and now over 3,300 schools are participating. It has been independently evaluated and proven to show a massive improvement in health, well-being and academic attainment. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have written to every single primary school encouraging them to participate. Would the Minister please consider doing the same here?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Following the debate that we had the other day, I looked up the Daily Mile online. It is now in 2,000 schools across the UK. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has described it as an excellent initiative, which indeed it looks like. It certainly seems to develop good habits of physical and mental health. Writing to schools is of course a matter for the Department for Education, but I will certainly speak to my colleagues in that department to encourage schools to take this up. In the spirit of the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I think it would be better to end with a quote from William at Woodfield Primary School in Wigan, who said that the Daily Mile,
“helps you with your maths, English, and you get faster each time, which makes you healthier”.
What more could you want?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot match the alliteration of the Minister but I ask him if he and his colleagues in other departments would consider an addition to the sport, to the dietary and to the drive against sugar, given the evidence of the recent review that the Government undertook into full-time social youth action in which organisations such as Volunteering Matters and City Year UK demonstrate that work by young people for young people against bullying, emotional trauma and mental health problems can have a real effect.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I completely agree with the noble Lord. I believe that he chairs the National Citizen Service, which has been a massive initiative to encourage such habits in teenagers. I completely concur with him: the Government take a number of approaches to encourage youth social action, and that is something that we will continue to support.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that families need to be presented with clear information about the food they buy and how important clear labelling is? Does he agree that when the UK leaves the EU, that will give us a greater flexibility to determine what information should be presented on packaged food and how it should be displayed?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend is absolutely right: this is one of the many opportunities which this country will enjoy after we have left the European Union. We will have the flexibility to vary food labelling to ensure that we can use the very best, and latest techniques to encourage people to eat more healthily.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, there are two components to keeping fit and losing weight. One is exercise—the example we have had is excellent—and the other, of course, is food. There are three partnerships in that: there is the department of health and the Department for Education, but parents are critical. What work has been done to involve parents in this whole issue? It is really serious, because obese children will probably be obese adults, and we know where that goes.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: parents are of course the first educators of their children and it is about them being able to set an example. I would focus on a couple of things: first, the national curriculum in schools, which is encouraging parents to get involved in understanding what good nutrition is, how to cook well and so on. The second is Public Health England’s new One You campaign, posters of which are up now, which talks about the 400, 600, 600 of calories per meal per day to encourage parents to get into good habits, because of course, if they have good habits and are well informed, their children will too.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister believe that within the plan there may be a greater role for the major broadcasters in this country to give a stronger lead against these problems? The BBC, in particular, has major flagship programmes which are primarily about eating, putting on weight and calories, but the same applies to the other channels. Will he join me in a conversation with the BBC to try to persuade them to produce a major flagship programme that addresses the issue, particularly with regard to children?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That is rather an interesting idea and suggestion from the noble Lord. We would need to speak to colleagues in the DCMS—which I would be delighted to do. I think that broadcasters such as the BBC have traditionally played a very important and positive role in public health issues and continue to do so, and I am happy to encourage them to do so in this area, too.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, while recognising the essential nature of sufficient exercise at all ages, in the absence of my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich, I again remind the House that the more you exercise, the more you eat.
Lord Elton
I understood that he was in China; I do not understand his silence.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
All I can say is that both my noble friends are excellent examples of slim and fit young men.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister is aware that while exercise is very good for children and adults—it improves mental and physical health—it does not do much for obesity. It is food that does the worst. It is not just sugar, it is fat, and ice cream, crisps and chocolates are so appealing to children. Ice cream has twice the calories of sugar. Will he consider how to get that message across?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
One thing I noticed at Easter was that Easter eggs seem to have got bigger. I was counting the calories on the Easter egg that my children had. There is a serious point there. It is about reformulation, it is not just about reduced sugar, salt and so on; it is also about smaller portion sizes, and that is a measure that we are tracking as well.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, it is really me. Is the Minister aware that a recent report from Canada showed that children who were fed on whole milk for the first eight years of their life were much healthier than those not, and they were not obese? Why on earth did we ever start skimming milk when human breast milk has the same amount of fat as cows’ milk? As far as I know, we have not started skimming human breast milk yet.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am trying to imagine how that might work. The noble Lord makes an important point which he also made in a debate the other day, that our understanding of dietary needs is changing. In some ways, we are rediscovering old truths about the importance of fat and reduction of sugar. That is part of the approach that Public Health England is promoting.
Non-Olympic Sports
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to provide resources and support structures for non-Olympic sports following the success of the home nations at the Commonwealth Games.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the home nations have indeed had a successful Commonwealth Games, collectively amassing 228 medals. Home nations sports councils support talent pathways, which lead into this Commonwealth success. Over the period 2017-21, Sport England is investing nearly £50 million of core funding to support sports that do not feature in Olympic and Paralympic programmes. This will help national governing bodies to deliver talent pathways, projects to tackle inactivity and increasing participation in sports.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would he not accept that certain sports, and netball is the obvious example, are very unlikely to get into the Olympics any time soon, but have a tremendous capacity for improving not only elite-level sport but mass participation? Under those circumstances, why are they dependent for support on something that is designed for grass-roots activity as its primary concern? Should there not be some way to support these sports that do not yet have the Olympic symbol and also those that are missing in the medal total?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, it is crucial that funding is invested strategically in the right sports, the right athletes and the right support programmes. The noble Lord is right that England Netball is having great success at the national level, winning the gold medal, in its strengthened domestic superleague and in increasing participation at grass-roots level. Not only does it benefit from Sport England support but we will be welcoming to Liverpool the 2019 World Cup, where I wish it every success. This is a work in progress. Netball’s focus needs to be on looking ahead much further than just two or three years.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s Question, one problem that netball, squash and bowls face, because they are not Olympic sports, is that their performers are not eligible for athlete performance awards, which is a different issue to talent pathways. The APAs for swimming are £3.6 million, for hockey £4.4 million and for modern pentathlon over £600,000. All those sports were also played at the Commonwealth Games. Are we not setting back the three sports that are not played at Olympic level by not allowing them to be eligible for APAs?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We will certainly be looking at that, but UK Sport has a clear remit, agreed with government, to maximise medal performance at Olympic and Paralympic Games, which covers many of the things that the noble Baroness has mentioned. This allowed it to achieve unprecedented medal success at Rio, but I will take her point back.
National Security Situation
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That this House takes note of the national security situation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I begin, if I may, on a slightly lighter note, given our serious subject. I could not but smile when I heard the great debate among your Lordships about jogging and taking up fitness. I am delighted to say that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has started very successfully at Buckingham Palace. However, seeing the gridlock that awaited me, I, along with the shadow Foreign Secretary, took to a sedate walk, but I then took to jogging to ensure that I reached your Lordships’ House on time. I think I should now subscribe to your Lordships’ jogging team—it would certainly do my waistline a great deal of benefit.
I am pleased to be opening this debate. I do so at a time when we are perhaps facing a greater range of challenges to our national security than we have seen in a generation. The picture is much more complex and in many ways arguably much less predictable than at any time since the Second World War. In particular, there are growing and diverse threats to the rules-based international order on which we have depended for our security, stability and prosperity for over 70 years. For decades, internationally agreed treaties, regimes and norms have helped to safeguard us against the worst excesses of human behaviour. Today they are being undermined and the safeguards flouted, not just by non-state actors but by states, with a flagrant disregard for their people and their international obligations. I assure noble Lords that the United Kingdom is standing firm in the face of these threats, and we will continue to do so. I will set out how we are doing that, and I will also update your Lordships’ House on our responses to the horrific chemical weapons attack in Syria—part of a continuing pattern of such attacks—and the reckless use of a nerve agent in Salisbury.
I am also pleased and delighted that I am joined by my noble friend Lord Howe, who brings great expertise and insight from his experience. I am delighted that he will close the debate, demonstrating again the seriousness with which the national security issue is taken across government.
Our 2015 strategic defence and security review foresaw this uncertain world and its emerging threats, but the trends it identified have come to pass even faster than anyone could have expected. The National Security Capability Review that the Government published last month identified a number of key changes. The first was a rise in state threats and state competition, in particular from Russia, which has expanded the range of its meddling beyond Ukraine to the western Balkans, Syria, and even to the outrageous attack on the streets of Salisbury. Russia has a long history of such behaviour, but it is now prepared to take greater risks. It more frequently uses disinformation and cyberattacks to meddle in other states’ affairs. In addition, Russia also continues to strengthen its military capabilities, including its nuclear and missile forces, while undermining the treaties and norms of global arms control, disarmament and counterproliferation.
The second key change is in the threat from terrorism and instability. With our international coalition partners we have made progress against the core of Daesh in Syria and Iraq. I had the opportunity to visit Iraq last month. I travelled to Mosul and I saw first-hand the importance of bringing Daesh to justice as well as how incredibly important it is that women and girls must play a central and pivotal role in stabilising the country—a belief I know we collectively share. I was delighted to launch the UK’s national action plan on women, peace and security while I was in Iraq. However, despite our success against the core of Daesh, we all recognise and know that the threat from extremist terrorism remains. Today, the threat has become more dispersed. This means that while Europe continues to face a threat from organised groups, there has also been a rise in less sophisticated attacks such as the ones that took place on the streets of London last year, in which the principal weapons were not bombs but vehicles and knives.
Another change identified by the review is the increasing threat to the rules-based international order that I mentioned earlier. This vital foundation for our peace and security is being intentionally degraded. I am the Minister for the United Nations, and when you look at that international body, you will see that Russia has used its veto 12 times to stall the work of the UN Security Council on Syria, using fundamentally flawed and wilfully misleading pretexts to prevent the action the international community needs to take. Syria’s repeated use of chemical weapons and North Korea’s multiple nuclear explosive and ballistic missile tests have flouted international legal obligations.
At the same time, Russia’s new missile programmes raise serious questions about whether it is still complying with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, one of the cornerstones of US-Russia strategic stability. Of course, we should not and do not consider these threats in isolation since each can impact on the other. For example, the risk of non-state actors getting hold of biological, chemical or nuclear material increases when states wilfully erode the treaties, conventions and indeed the norms that are designed to prevent the proliferation of such material.
Thus far I have painted what perhaps some would say is a very gloomy picture, but it is important to recognise that this is only one side of the story. The UK enjoys a range of world-leading capabilities in defence, diplomacy, intelligence and cybersecurity. Let me say how pleased I was, in this Commonwealth summit week, to see that yesterday the Prime Minister was able to announce a £15 million package of support for Commonwealth countries to strengthen their cybersecurity capabilities. In addition to these significant assets, the UK also projects formidable influence thanks to sharing our experience of democracy, on how to build, sustain and strengthen democracies, as well as in its support for the media and cultural organisations. I refer also to the incredible work undertaken across the world by our NGOs and other civil society groups.
We are not facing these threats alone. Our international partnerships are robust and our global influence is significant, as we have seen in the wake of the recent events in Syria and Salisbury. Let me turn now to the specific threats to our national security.
In Syria, the ongoing conflict continues not only to cause untold pain for the Syrian people—women, children and men—but also to threaten the stability of neighbouring countries and wider international security. The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime causes extreme human suffering in Syria and is a clear challenge to the international rules that keep us all safe. Before it was blocked by a series of Russian vetoes in New York, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism found that the regime had used chemical weapons not once, not twice, but in four separate incidents between 2014 and 2017.
In Douma, on 7 April, there was yet another chemical weapons attack which killed up to 75 people, including many women and children. Let me assure noble Lords that we have worked with our allies to establish what happened. Russia’s grotesque accusation that the attack was somehow staged by the United Kingdom does not deserve to be dignified by any further response. A significant amount of information, including intelligence, indicates that this was a chemical weapons attack and that the Syrian regime was responsible. It is the latest horrifying example of the lengths it is prepared to go to and the human suffering it is prepared to inflict.
The Syrian regime’s persistent pattern of behaviour had to be stopped. We sought diplomatic channels to achieve this. Let me answer a question that has been raised and assure noble Lords that we will continue to do so, but our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted. There was no practicable alternative to the use of force to alleviate humanitarian suffering. The military action we took, closely co-ordinated with our allies, the United States and France, was proportionate and took every step to avoid civilian casualties. Our strikes were carefully targeted to alleviate humanitarian suffering by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring its future use. The strikes sent a clear message to Bashar al-Assad and others who might be bent on undermining the international rules-based order: we were prepared to take action to defend that order. As the Prime Minister has said, the strikes were legally and morally right. The way we protect our national interest is by standing up for the global rules and standards that keep us all safe.
I turn now to the events in Salisbury. The attempted assassination of Sergei and Yulia Skripal was another example of blatant disdain for the established framework of international rules. However, I am sure I speak for all in your Lordships’ House when I say it was good to hear that, despite the poor early prognosis, Yulia Skripal was well enough to be discharged from hospital last week. That is testimony to the quick and professional response of the emergency services and the incredible NHS staff, and I hope—I am sure I speak for all Members of your Lordships’ House—that Sergei Skripal’s condition also continues to improve.
On 12 April, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons explicitly confirmed the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical used in Salisbury. This supports our finding that it was a military-grade nerve agent known as Novichok. The OPCW report also noted that it had high levels of purity. This is indicative of expert production in the kind of controlled scientific environment more likely to be found in a state than in, say, a criminal or terrorist network. Of course, although the identification of the nerve agent is an essential piece of technical evidence in our investigation, neither Porton Down’s analysis nor the OPCW’s report identifies the country or place of origin of the agent used in this attack. We continue to assess that there is no plausible alternative explanation for what happened in Salisbury to Russian state responsibility.
In his letter to the NATO Secretary-General, our National Security Adviser, Sir Mark Sedwill, published details of Russia’s programme of testing means of delivering nerve agents, including their application to door handles, where the highest concentration of the nerve agent, Novichok, was found in Salisbury. He also detailed the Russian intelligence services’ interest in the Skripals, going back at least as far as 2013. He concluded:
“Only Russia has the technical means, operational experience and the motive”.
That view is shared by our allies, who showed their support with the unprecedented expulsion of 153 Russian diplomats from 28 countries and NATO. This unified international response was vital in signalling a collective condemnation of Russia’s actions, and we welcome the latest strong statement of support from the G7 earlier this week.
For its part, Russia has provided no explanation for the existence of undeclared chemical weapons or of how this substance came to be released on British soil. Instead, it has responded to legitimate questioning with a barrage of denials and disinformation, pointing the finger of blame at other countries, including the United Kingdom. To date, through Russian state media and official sources, more than two dozen contradictory and changing fantasies have been proposed to explain who carried out the Salisbury attack—from the Americans, to destabilise the world, to Ukraine, to frame Russia. This disinformation campaign has not worked, as the world’s eyes are now open to Russia’s attempts at malign influence.
The attack in Salisbury is part of a pattern of Russian aggression over the past decade, from the murder of Alexander Litvinenko to its actions in Crimea and Ukraine. In all cases, the UK has been at the forefront of a strong and determined international response. Sanctions form a key part of that response. EU sanctions have been in place since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, sending a clear message to the Kremlin that the West will not tolerate its flagrant violation of international law. These sanctions are beginning to bite. The Government are committed to imposing further sanctions if necessary to counter Russia’s malign actions here in the UK, including criminality, corruption and illicit finance.
We are also prepared to call out activity that breaches norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. In conjunction with international partners, we attributed NotPetya to the Russian military. The joint UK/US advice to industry earlier this week marks an important step in our fight-back against state-sponsored aggression in cyberspace. We will continue to take the necessary actions to counter Russian aggression, but I make it absolutely clear that our quarrel is not with the Russian people and this is not where we want our relationship to be. We held out the hand of engagement but have been given every signal to beware. Instead of this atmosphere of mutual suspicion and the imposition of sanctions, we would prefer to nurture the flourishing cultural links between our countries and maintain, sustain and grow trade. We hope that the Kremlin will take a different path.
In the meantime, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, we must, where possible, along with two other permanent members, maintain a dialogue. Russia and the UK are members of the Security Council and I know that this question has been raised by various noble Lords; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the specific issue of continuing dialogue internationally. I assure noble Lords that, as members of the Security Council, this dialogue continues. We do so because we face common challenging issues which impact international security, such as those around North Korea and Iran. We will also continue to encourage Russia to engage constructively on military issues of concern through the NATO-Russia dialogue.
In conclusion, the threats we face are significant and varied. As most of us accept, they threaten not just the UK’s national security but that of our allies and the whole international system on which our collective security depends. In the face of these threats, the United Kingdom stands firm and resolute: in the United Nations Security Council, where we continue to push for peace in Syria and the removal of nuclear weapons from North Korea; in defending our data, our systems and our citizens from cyberattack and hostile state activity; in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, where we will continue to work to restore and sustain the integrity of the Chemical Weapons Convention; and in our determination to end the use of chemical weapons once and for all, wherever it may occur, and to seek justice for the victims of these heinous crimes. We remain absolutely committed to defending our freedom, democracy and rule of law, and to upholding the international rules-based system on which our security and prosperity depend. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward this debate, given both the importance of recent events and the seriousness of the issues that have been raised. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the debate, which, given its nature, was hugely wide ranging. I thank him also for his excellent work at CHOGM. We welcome the fact that he leads for the Government on human rights issues, and nobody in this House would doubt his personal commitment to the issues for which he has ministerial responsibility.
Today’s debate provides an opportunity for us to discuss recent issues but also to look at the wider context. In considering our response to recent events, we have to examine our national security and our international role in the long-term strategy for peace and stability in regions of conflict.
There can never be any justification for using chemical weapons. Both the Geneva protocol and, more recently, the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1992 make clear that their use is illegal under international law. Yet the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians is well documented, in a conflict that is estimated to have left around half a million people dead and many thousands more injured, maimed and displaced. The appalling attack on Douma was the latest and the most serious in Syria, with hundreds of people affected and around 70 dead.
However, as we have found, this is not just something that happens hundreds of miles away. As the Minister referred to, we have been shocked by the deliberate and calculated use of a nerve agent here on UK soil in the attempted murder of two individuals without any concern for others who may have been affected. We concur with the Minister’s good wishes to all those who have been affected and wish them a full recovery. It is clear that the use of chemical weapons is a serious global issue and we should condemn their use totally and unreservedly. We should also work internationally through the UN and our European allies in full support of the OPCW to ensure that such weapons cannot be manufactured or used in conflict.
Following the multilateral attack on Syrian chemical installations last week, the Prime Minister was clear that she considered that the Government fully complied with international law and that there was no need for Parliament to be consulted. We fully accept that it is not always possible or appropriate for Parliament to be consulted prior to military action. Sometimes, it will be because emergency action is required. There may also be times when operational reasons dictate that it is not possible to provide for such a debate. However, other Prime Ministers have considered it appropriate to consult Parliament, so it would be helpful if the Government today were able to provide the reasons why they believe that prior parliamentary engagement was not appropriate in this case. I am not challenging the Government’s judgment but seeking clarity on the principles of consulting, debating and voting in Parliament in advance of military action. I asked this of the Leader of the House on Monday, but she was unable to provide an answer, so if the Minister is able to do so today, I would be grateful.
It is imperative that we ensure that we act at all times within international law and conventions. It is what we ask of others and the standard that we set for ourselves. On Monday, I asked what discussions the Government had had with the UN about the principle of humanitarian intervention and whether any such discussions were ongoing. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House was unable to answer, but it would be helpful to know whether discussions are taking place on such an important issue.
In Syria, as in any area of conflict, there is an urgent need to provide humanitarian relief and medical care, both to refugees forced from their homes and to those who have remained. This country has a proud history of supporting those fleeing violence and having to flee their home country. The Minister will know the strong support that this House gave to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dubs to what became the Immigration Act 2016. Across Europe, unaccompanied children in camps in Greece, Italy and elsewhere are feeling exactly the anguish and the danger that we have seen in Syria. We had hoped that under the Dubs amendment we would have been able to settle 3,000 children in the UK, and yet, even against the Government’s promise of fewer than 500, by the end of last year there were still more than 200 places available under the scheme. Given the desperate plight of these children, can the Minister provide an update on how both the spirit and the letter of the Dubs amendment to protect children, as unaccompanied minors in danger, will be implemented? As the Minister knows, my noble friend Lord Dubs has tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure that we maintain at least this commitment.
Military action should only ever be one thread of a strategy. Without diplomatic and political efforts, and without humanitarian support, no conflict will ever be resolved in a way that has long-term sustainability. The OPCW must be allowed to continue its work in Syria unhindered. To date, its inspectors have still not gained access to the site. Does the Minister have an update on this and what action our Government are able to take to help secure that access? We know that the conflict in Syria is complex and multifaceted, but, without an increased focus on diplomatic efforts and a credible plan for de-escalation, the conflict will continue. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, could expand on what will happen over the next few weeks in terms of the broader strategy. The Foreign Affairs Council in Europe has met to discuss the possibility of taking further action. Can the Minister provide any update on what form that could take? What efforts are being made to restore the diplomatic process to seek a political solution?
The national and international security situation presents ever-evolving challenges and threats to the UK. Our nation’s defences are facing unprecedented challenges. These recent events have brought into sharp focus the urgent need for the Government to make strategic defence decisions, taking into account UK defence capabilities and operational requirements.
The recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces can be described as nothing short of a crisis. The overall offer to service personnel is continuing to fall under this Government. That is having a devastating effect on recruitment and on retention. The National Audit Office report published earlier this week found that the Armed Forces are experiencing their biggest staffing shortfall for a decade, including—worryingly—a recruitment crisis among intelligence analysts. I was struck by the warning from General Sir Richard Barrons, the former commander of the Joint Forces Command, who said,
“you can either stop denying that defence is unable to deliver the things it is required to deliver, or you are going to watch it fail”.
That is a terrible indictment.
Our capabilities must reflect the changing environment, with threats, as the Minister outlined in his introduction, posed by Russia, North Korea and groups such as Islamic State. The Government have to focus on what role we want our Armed Forces to play internationally and the resources that are needed to maintain the security of the UK. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Nick Carter, advised in a recent speech that Russia poses a major threat that the UK will struggle to confront without an increase in defence spending. Huge challenges for the Ministry of Defence remain, and the Government must commit to no further hollowing out of our Armed Forces and our defence capabilities.
The threats faced at home today are also unprecedented. We have to ensure that we have the right resources, the right measures and the right technology to meet those challenges. Is the Minister confident that we are effectively using the existing measures and powers that we have, including economic sanctions and protections? As well as the additional powers announced following Salisbury, will the Minister update the House on the use of existing powers such as, for example, unexplained wealth orders to tackle the flow of illicit money into the UK economy?
I also raise the role of policing in security. Our national security is protected by our exemplary Armed Forces and intelligence services, but it is also protected day in, day out, by police officers operating in our communities. When the Minister spoke at the beginning, he referred to the unprecedented attacks that we have seen in London and Manchester as well as Salisbury. The head of UK counterterror policing, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, warned last year that cuts to local policing could have a potentially disastrous impact on counterterrorism efforts. That point has been made on many occasions during Questions in this House by noble Lords with expertise and knowledge.
With the loss of front-line officers and with them the loss of the relationships and trust that have built up over decades of community policing teams, Mr Basu asked where that vital intelligence will come from. He said:
“All the work we’ve done over the last 20 years to put neighbourhood policing back on the map ... is in danger of disappearing. For me, that is a national security issue.”
Since 2010, we have lost 21,000 police officers, 18,000 police staff and 6,800 police community officers, in addition to the reduction in the support of a number of armed officers. Last month, the independent Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that policing is under “significant stress”. On occasions, that stress stretches some forces to such an extent that they risk being unable to keep people safe in some very important areas of policing. These things are not independent. What happens here at home, in our Armed Forces and internationally are all interdependent and interrelated. These pressures should concern us all.
The UK and the US intelligence forces this week issued a joint alert on the campaign of hostile cyberactivity by Russian state-sponsored actors. The Minister is nodding at me, so I welcome that he recognises that. Cybersecurity has been the focus of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting this week. But questions remain and the Government need to address them to give us the reassurance that we need. What are they doing to review the resources, and increase them if required, for the growing cyber threats? The Intelligence and Security Committee reported concerns over the ability of the intelligence services to recruit and retain critically important technical staff. Without those staff we cannot address the threats that we face. What is being undertaken now to ensure that the services have the personnel they need?
The first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, but we also need to consider the wider international implications and how we can best fulfil our role in supporting the UN, our European partners and others in providing for international peace and stability.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the shadow Leader of the House, with both of whom I am in substantial agreement. I go back to the issue of Syria, which was the catalyst for bringing forward this important debate. With the benefit of hindsight, I am able to rehearse a number of propositions perhaps beyond those that have already been discussed that establish the lawfulness of what took place.
First, Assad used chemical weapons on Douma but he had done so before. This was a breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria was a signatory in 2013. The Assad regime ignored the warning available in September 2013, although the prospect of action was aborted. The use of chemical weapons is a breach of the law of conflict and humanitarian law. As a signatory to the convention, the United Kingdom has a legitimate interest in its enforcement. Of course, as had already been said, the Security Council, for reasons of Russian policy, has been effectively emasculated.
In the course of Monday’s discussion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, raised the issue of responsibility to protect. That doctrine was first enunciated by Prime Minister Blair in his Chicago speech; it was refined thereafter, particularly by the Canadian Government. It was successful in Kosovo—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, indicated—and Sierra Leone. Although it may not be universally accepted, in the circumstances we are describing, I believe it can legitimately be described as “persuasive”.
A combination of these circumstances has been extremely unusual. My question, which may not be susceptible to an answer today, is this: what is the position if, in the next six weeks, the Assad regime once again mobilises helicopters and drops barrel bombs filled with high explosive that kill and maim more people and cause more damage than anything that occurred in Douma? If these circumstances arise, they will pose a challenge not only to the Government but to those of us who have supported the action taken by them.
Let me turn to some of the broader issues. This debate is an extremely broad canvas, to put it mildly, and in the time available, I am not sure that I can colour it all in. I must therefore be selective. Looking at the number of noble Lords with experience and qualifications who will follow me, I have no doubt that any omissions I make will be more than made up for by their contributions.
The national security capability review was published on 28 March, on the eve of the recess. It got very little national coverage. Things are usually published on the eve of a recess because they contain bad news. I can give the Government some relief, because it contained no bad news. In fact, it contained not very much at all. When examined, the document is heavy on ambition but light on substance. It tells us a great deal of what we already knew or could have reasonably predicted. The approach of the review has already been criticised by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, of which I have the honour of being a member. That criticism centres on how we can make judgments about the overall issue of national security while the defence component is absent. We know why that is so, but it seems to argue strongly for the view that we will be able best to understand the content and effectiveness of the capability review once defence issues have been properly resolved.
I appreciate that security depends on more than defence—including soft power, intelligence and counter-terrorism—but I would argue that defence is unique because it is the public demonstration of will, capability and deterrence. If all three services are short of personnel, as the review suggests, part of what we are expecting to be told at the end of June by the Secretary of State for Defence must include some effort to deal with those shortages.
But one issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that causes me considerable concern is the changing nature of the nuclear environment and the weakening, as he said, of arms control. But it is not just Russia. In the United States, the comprehensive test-ban treaty has not yet been ratified. There is considerable doubt whether the Trump Administration will be willing to sign a follow-on strategic arms reduction treaty. As has been pointed out, the Russians have effectively given up on the INF Treaty—that rather improbable product of the meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan. Indeed, it is not just nuclear, because Russia has effectively given up the CFE—the conventional forces in Europe treaty.
But there is one more pernicious doctrine abroad in the whole question of arms control and nuclear weapons. It is called de-escalation, but it is not what it seems. It amounts to reduced nuclear payloads being put on existing missiles, such as those nuclear-capable missiles that have now been deployed in Kaliningrad. It therefore embraces, if not directly at least by inference, the use of nuclear weapons as battlefield weapons—nuclear war fighting. Noble Lords will remember that that was one of the threats of the Cold War. The United States of America hinted that there would be a more general application of the deterrence of nuclear weapons in its own security review. In Russia, military generals have been willing to accept, if I might put it that way, the possibility of the same.
That naturally leads me to the United States. We have not an exclusive relationship but a particular one, just as Macron and Trump have a particular relationship. The features of our relationship are well known: intelligence sharing and access to the Trident missile pool; we are each other’s ally of first choice; a senior partnership in NATO. But we are beholden to an occasionally incoherent and often volatile President. There is not much mention these days of the pivot to the East, which caused so much anxiety in Europe when it was first pronounced by Secretary of State Clinton, but America now sees China as a competitor. The President is embarked on a rather improbable initiative relating to North Korea. It can reasonably be argued that, so far as the United States is concerned, its interests may continue to be focused more often in the East than they are in Europe.
Every President leaves a mark on the presidency. I believe that it is wrong to assume that President Trump’s successor, from either party, will be drawn by or be willing to embrace the Atlanticist tradition. Given the state of politics in United States, it is more likely that such a successor will owe a great deal towards populism. That is why we must do more for ourselves and along with our European allies, whether in NATO or the European Union. PESCO, as noble Lords will know, seeks to improve the effectiveness of the European collective contribution to NATO. The United Kingdom should lead that initiative by the nature of the budget we are prepared to pay for defence. To do so would provide a commitment not just to trade but to the security relationship with the European Union, which has not yet been determined but on which the capability review places great stress. We need more capability for the United Kingdom, Europe and for NATO. If we do that we will allay the issue of burden sharing, which is alive in Washington in the Senate, the House and the White House.
I believe that 2% is not enough for the United Kingdom’s defence budget. That has been so particularly since the cost of the nuclear deterrent became part of the defence budget rather than being separately financed.
Having begun my speech with Syria, perhaps I can finish with Syria. I find myself in the position of being like a sinner who is about to repent but who cannot quite bring himself to do so. The reason why I take this position is that it is now beyond doubt that Assad will win this civil war. It is beyond doubt that he did not and does not need to use chemical weapons. It is beyond doubt that he will continue to enjoy unequivocal support from Russia because of Russia’s anxiety to maintain the influence it has garnered from the vacuum left by what one might describe as the West and because of its bases at Latakia and Tartus, which give it direct access to the Mediterranean. As part of the forward thinking that must surely be provoked by these discussions, Syria is—one might argue—an essential component of our foreign policy in the future. We will have to reshape our policy in relation to Syria and to Assad and we should not shrink from that either.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this debate could hardly be more timely, coming as it does just a month after the publication of the Government’s national security capability review and following hard on the heels of the employment of chemical agents in Syria and the UK. I am pleased that, among all of our national convulsions over Brexit, we are, for a brief time at least, able to discuss the perilous global situation in which we find ourselves and the responses with which we might best counter the challenges we face.
Let me start with the security capability review itself. It makes a number of obvious points with which it is hard to argue. It is somewhat less convincing, however, when it comes to the “so what?” questions that flow from its analysis. I will touch on just a few of these. The first relates to the “fusion doctrine”, which I assume is what used to be known as the “comprehensive approach” in a new guise. The proposition that the UK should react to security challenges with a coherent, cross-disciplinary response that utilises all elements of power, soft and hard, in an appropriate mix is, of course, indisputable. The problem, though, is that Whitehall is not really very good at this. During the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it took a lot of time and effort to get the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development working together effectively. The ad-hoc processes and individual relationships that went into making the endeavour successful did not, by and large, endure beyond those campaigns.
If the new doctrine is to be successful, and not just the whim of the year, it will require a fundamental shift in culture, as the security capability review itself acknowledges. However, a change of culture is one of the most difficult things to achieve: it takes sustained effort over many years and a system of rewards and sanctions that drive behaviour. A senior responsible official, while helpful, will not achieve this fundamental shift. Can the Minister tell the House how such a change in culture is to be driven and, most importantly, assessed across Whitehall over the long term?
Turning now to external issues, I sense a degree of schizophrenia in the capability review when it comes to China. Much is made of our commitment to a rules-based international system. China seems to acquiesce in such a system only if it gets to make up the rules itself. It has engaged in the theft of intellectual property on a massive scale, and it uses its increasing economic and industrial strength to leverage its own interests—not unreasonably—from a Chinese perspective. However, the capability review merely notes:
“Competition between states … including in the South China Sea, brings risks of miscalculation and conflict”.
It goes on to note, somewhat laconically:
“We have established a global comprehensive strategic partnership with China”.
What exactly is this strategic partnership? How are we balancing our engagement with China and our need for its investment with the protection of our national infrastructure and the wider observance of international rules and norms? There are clearly tensions here that it seems to me give rise to fundamental questions that the security capability review has ducked. I should be grateful if the Minister provided some enlightenment on this crucial matter.
There is, though, one strand running through the review that is both clear and compelling, although it raises more questions than it answers. In chapter after chapter, the review emphasises the importance of finding ways to partner effectively with the EU once we leave. I could not agree more. As I have said on previous occasions, our security in these islands has always been inextricably linked with the security of the rest of Europe, and no referendum can change that. We need urgently to agree with the EU a method of consulting and co-operating on a wide range of security and defence issues, and that means a method of consulting and co-operating on foreign policy matters more widely. This needs to be an ongoing and enduring process. Coming together just at times of crisis will not enable us to respond effectively to, let alone pre-empt, the common challenges we will face. The national security capability review sets out the requirement in stark terms but offers no solutions. Will the Minister tell the House what work is under way to provide the mechanisms and processes that are urgently needed to underpin our security in this regard?
I turn now to the burning issue of state-based threats within Europe, from Russia in particular. The capability review rightly highlights the considerable and increasing risks of conflict, but it is less clear on the strategy for dealing with this. There has been much talk of a new Cold War, but this is a misreading of the situation. We in the West do not face an ideological foe bent on global revolution, as was the case with the Soviet Union. We face a gangster regime that has plundered its own country for individual gain and seeks to increase its international stature and power by equally unsavoury means. How do we respond to such a challenge? First, it seems to me that we need to take a long view here. Our ultimate strategic objective should be a Russia that lives comfortably with its neighbours, adheres to accepted international norms and is a responsible member of the wider international community. It is therefore important that we continue to engage with Russia as and when we can and maintain channels of communication, even in times of great stress.
On the other hand, we need to be clear that certain behaviours simply cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. We need to be absolutely clear about our responses if we are to lower the risk of miscalculation. The bottom line in this regard must be our commitment to NATO and our undiminished support for Article 5. NATO must demonstrate its capability and resolve when it comes to the territorial defence of its members, and the UK should lead the way in this. Russia must be left in no doubt of the utmost seriousness with which we view the matter. Meanwhile, we must strengthen our capabilities to deal with asymmetric threats, particularly in cyberspace and in the various social strata of our nations. The UK has made a good start in this but still has a lot of catching up to do. More shadowy Russian actions outside these spheres will require more nuanced responses. These will not necessarily be effective in changing Russian behaviour in the short term, but the mere fact of a response is nevertheless important. Of crucial importance is the need to maintain a high degree of international unity in the face of Russian challenges, which only serves to underline the importance of the co-ordination and co-operation mechanisms within Europe to which I referred earlier.
One very difficult and pertinent matter which requires urgent thought is how the international community should approach the use of chemical weapons. We need to decide if the nature of these weapons and the requirement to sustain the Chemical Weapons Convention justify a coercive or retributive response to their use. If they do, that should be as part of a wider strategic programme of action to minimise the risk of chemical attacks and to punish them more comprehensively when they occur. One-off military responses may send a signal about our opposition to such weapons, but are unlikely by themselves to deter their use. This is an issue on which the security capability review is unhelpfully silent.
Finally, I remind the House of some of the words and phrases used by the Prime Minister in her introduction to the review, where she sets out what has changed since 2015:
“threats have continued to intensify and evolve and we face a range of complex challenges … the resurgence of state-based threats … the undermining of the international rules based order; the rise in cyber-attacks … the increase in threat posed by terrorism, extremism and instability”.
Well, quite. That is an accurate and very worrying picture of what is happening in our world. One must ask, though: how has all this affected our investment priorities in the UK? The answer seems to be not at all. The defence budget has been shown to be inadequate to meet the aims of the 2015 review, let alone to cope with the increased threats and challenges set out so clearly by the Prime Minister.
A strategy is truly a strategy only if it matches objectives with resources. It is simply no good parroting old tropes, as the national security capability review does, about a minimum of 2% of GDP being committed to defence, and about a 0.5% real-terms annual increase in spending. It should hardly be a source of great national pride that we have just avoided breaching NATO’s absolute minimum spending requirement, and a 0.5% annual increment is clearly not enough; nor is comparing our position to the delinquents in the alliance a strategic response to the challenges of the world.
We are in danger from a range of complex and growing threats; on that, I entirely agree with the Prime Minister. What is required now is not mere reorganisation and rebranding, but a programme of investment commensurate with those threats. Only then will we have a national security strategy worth the name.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, I welcome the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting here in London. Post Brexit, it presents an opportunity for this country to deepen further our relationships with the Commonwealth, in trade of course but not just in economic measures—in diplomacy in the UN, particularly through the UN Security Council debates; and in defence, where I see one part of the deployment of our new aircraft carriers being beyond the Suez Canal, as a UN rapid-reaction maritime force where those carriers will need accompanying vessels. Those could easily come—with enthusiasm, I think—from the Australian, New Zealand and, I hope, Indian navies.
There are three dangerous potential military crises on the international agenda: North Korean nuclear weapons; eastern Europe, focused on Ukraine; and the Middle East, focused on Syria. Any or all of these could bubble over into serious military conflict. North Korea is of concern to the UK. This is not some far-distant problem. We contributed militarily to the conflict which started in June 1950 and lost many lives. We now know that it was a proxy war. In Moscow in April 1950, Stalin had given the green light to North Korea to start it, as did Mao in Beijing in May, but for years the Chinese and Russians went through a public ritual of blaming each other for starting the war. Both were surprised by the US intervention over Korea in 1950 and by the support that it had from the UK. The UK decided on early recognition of China in 1950 and it was a carefully thought out position, one of which Clement Attlee was rightly proud.
President Trump on Korea has been far better than many of his predecessors. It was a wise decision to ask President Xi to the US so early in his tenure in April last year, and the men have met many times since and taken the measure of each other. Mike Pompeo’s secret visit is extremely encouraging, especially since he will be the US Secretary of State very soon, I hope. Many people in Europe and the US who make justified criticism of President Trump’s handling of foreign affairs should remember that secrecy is an extremely important part of international diplomacy, as is the clear and concise linkage between the use of force and the importance of negotiation. It is necessary that President Trump and President Putin should meet, as soon as possible, to discuss these two very difficult issues of Syria and Ukraine.
Churchill did not say that jaw, jaw is better than war, war. He said: “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war”, which is a far more toughly worded explanation of why we must always be open to negotiation while preparing for war. But secrecy and co-ordination with colleagues is vital in any defence strategy, and the Prime Minister was absolutely right to use the prerogative powers on this most recent incident. We should be quite clear about it: prerogative powers for international negotiations are an essential. I wish that some of the diplomats who speak in this House frequently would reflect on that in the appalling problems we are making for the Government in their negotiating of Brexit. Even under the infamous Article 50, there has to be some measure of secrecy, flexibility and give and take in any negotiations.
We need to rapidly rethink our problems with Syria. We have made three interventions over chemical weapons, correctly. First, there was Secretary of State Kerry’s and Foreign Minister Lavrov’s initiative to remove large supplies of sarin gas from Syria in 2013, which was far more effective than any pinprick bombing. Secondly, there was the 2017 intervention by President Trump when sarin gas was used, which demonstrated that Russia had either deliberately or inadvertently accepted some sarin gas remaining in Syria. Thirdly, there was the recent co-ordinated action on the use of gas. Of course, chlorine was not included in the 2017 negotiation. But in Syria, we now have a far more dangerous problem: the proven existence of Iranian military forces with drones in Syria, with the real probability that they are in Lebanon as well. We cannot continue to take the same attitude to Iran until it is persuaded to bring its forces back. Iran is not an aggressive nation, historically, but it is an aggressive act to deploy in Syria—particularly since Iraq now has a Shia Prime Minister and the majority in Iraq form the Government of that country. Iran no longer faces the threat that it did from Saddam Hussein and the Sunni minority that was in control of Iraq for many decades.
To come to Europe and defence, for a post-Brexit Britain the challenge is abundantly clear. It has to make an urgent decision—I am surprised it has not already been made by this Government—to increase our defence spending from 2% to, at the very least, 2.5% and as soon as possible up to 3%. President Macron said a few days ago in the European Parliament, “We share so much”—he meant with America, but he said that it is “rejecting multilateralism”. He said he was convinced that this model is more important than ever but it is “very fragile”. America as a whole is not rejecting multilateralism and I am not convinced Trump is either. It is up to us in Europe to demonstrate to the US that we will match its NATO commitment. On this Britain should take a lead, and urgently. It is important to remember that successive US Presidents have warned us that we must give a commitment to NATO if they are to persuade their people to give such a commitment. The US pays over 70% of NATO’s bills. This is freeloading and it was Obama who first warned us that we were doing that. Trump has reiterated it and they are both correct.
There is only one serious multilateral defence organisation in the world, and that is NATO. Anyone, anywhere who damages that is threatening international peace. This country now faces a serious decision over defence policy post Brexit. There can be no doubt whatever that we will remove ourselves from the External Action Service immediately we leave in April 2019. That External Action Service has not been a great success. Its contribution to the fighting in Ukraine through the EU-Ukraine agreement has already been commented on in Select Committee reports in this House, and I will go no further on that.
What could we do to link NATO well with the foreign policy and overall security policy of the EU when it has 27 members? That is a very serious issue. We should not rush into it; we need to gather our thoughts. An example of what we might consider is talking with our friends in NATO who are not members of the EU: Norway, Iceland and Turkey. There is no more difficult problem than how to keep Turkey in NATO. It was extremely encouraging that President Erdoğan came out in support of the action that the US, UK and France took in Syria. It is not proving easy, and there are difficult relations between the US and Turkey. They are greatly strained at the moment. There is a strong case for considering the establishment of a NATO-EU permanent joint council—a PJC—of NATO non-EU members and NATO EU members. It needs to be small if it is to be effective. A council composed of Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK might make very good sense, but it is up to NATO to choose its group and the EU to choose its group. That would be the sort of linkage that we might look to post Brexit. Were that to be established, we would have no case for staying in the EU’s permanent structured co-operation on security and defence—PESCO—or for being involved in the EU’s co-ordinated annual review on defence—CARD—which aims to build up European defence planning, or the European defence fund. That raises difficult problems for us as we want joint procurement bilaterally, on a European basis or with the US. That flexibility has served us well. A lot of our Armed Forces’ sophisticated weaponry is due to industrial production agreements with US manufacturers, and we should not put ourselves in a situation where we believe there is merit in Europe being self-sufficient.
This is a troubled and difficult time. This debate is well timed. There needs to be great thought about how we proceed, but we should not underrate the importance of Putin and Trump meeting very soon. The trade-offs in Syria have to come with benefit to Russia. The trade-offs in Ukraine have to come with benefit to the United States.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for bringing this debate forward at this pivotal time in our national security and foreign policy. It is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and other distinguished speakers with their panoramic perspectives. Given the timing of the debate, I shall offer some reflections on the Syrian situation, both the danger it represents for national security and the role it might play in recasting relations with Russia, even in the stressful times described so clearly by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
The risk that Syria poses to national security is beyond doubt. A seven-year war has, as we have heard, produced massive displacement of people and placed pressure on Europe as refugees flee the violence. Regional and international powers, with their different strategic aims, are fighting a proxy war, and the spectre of clashes between Israel and Iran hangs over the conflict. There is the ideological contamination and the political ambitions of Daesh and a multitude of jihadist groups populated by Syrians—some of them radicalised, often through the cruelty of the regime—and foreign fighters. There are allied strikes, with Russian retaliation threatened. And all the while, there is the moral outrage of the untold suffering of the Syrian people.
In the last debate in your Lordships’ House before the Easter Recess, a debate on the humanitarian crisis in Syria, I said that,
“history is on the side of hope”.—[Official Report, 29/03/18; col. 957.]
Despite the recent turn of events, I still hold faith in hope, and I dare to suggest that our continued diplomatic efforts to end the war in Syria, to which the Prime Minister recommitted the Government in her Statement, may be an opportunity to mobilise the diplomatic and global reach that the Minister referred to, not only to save Syrians from more suffering but to improve the state of UK/Russia relations. Could it just be that the cause of peace in Syria offers a chance to recast relations with Russia away from confrontation towards co-operation, beginning to rekindle trust?
We know that, crudely perhaps, the UK and Russia have been working with different narratives over Syria. They are projections of the contrasting stories that I hear from the Syrian people themselves. The Syrian refugees that I meet in Coventry, good people who stood on the side of a noble reach for freedom, suffered terribly at the regime’s hands and can see no future for their country with Assad. That is the side that we took, again for noble reasons. Other Syrians whose testimonies that I hear, and I heard some more this week, have been so traumatised by the fear of chaos and the threat of jihadi control and cruelty that, even if they held out some hope for the rebellion in its early days, now long for stability at all costs and can see no future for Syria without Assad. That is the side that Russia has taken, and it has invested heavily in that outcome—and, as we have heard, that serves its strategic interests. Stated in that form, the two narratives sound irreconcilable, but they have a deep point of connection that is ultimately for peace, stability and a future that, for the Syrian people, is genuinely in their hands and that, for the UK, Russia and other nations, does not risk further, even military, confrontation between them.
The Geneva and Astana peace processes testify that a desire for a lasting peace is a common cause of both narratives. If the same diplomatic energy and skill used by the US, the UK and France to conduct missile strikes last week is deployed to focus on jointly bringing the conflict to a close, not only are we fulfilling the moral imperative of ending the suffering of Syrian people but we are beginning a work of repair on UK/Russian relations, strengthening them as trust grows in pursuit of a common objective. The principles governing the UK military action—that it was primarily humanitarian, that it was not seeking regime change, that it was not an assault on Russian interests—offer the sort of approach that could allow a common cause to arise. The Astana process has not delivered peace, and without Russia, Turkey and Iran the Geneva process is flawed. Are Her Majesty’s Government working with the US and other partners and protagonists to bring together the two separate peace processes that, as they stand, seem to reinforce rather than reconcile the narratives?
A new way is needed that gathers the international players under one roof behind closed doors, without grandstanding, where the reality of the situation can be faced and whatever makes for the cessation of violence, secures a semblance of stability to Syria and removes the risk of the conflict spiralling into regional or global conflict is agreed. Given Russia’s stake in the Syrian war and the ongoing threat of jihadist terror, hard choices will need to be made about Assad’s future, as we have heard, but, at the same time, tough deals struck over whatever transitional arrangements will lay out a route to Syria determining its own future.
After Aleppo and east Ghouta, it is clear that another theatre with catastrophic potential is looming: Idlib. It raises the sharp issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. How is a bloodbath in Idlib, with its risks of escalation, to be avoided? Could even Idlib become a means of reworking international relationships, a chance, even at this stage, to inject a humanitarian logic into the military logic, to secure corridors of safety for civilians, to require forms of warfare that accord with international norms?
The Government have faced unenviable moral and military decisions over the past week. Their appeal has been to defend humanity in Syria and beyond from the scourge of chemical weapons. The humanitarian instinct to preserve people from unspeakable suffering must now drive renewed efforts for an end to conflict and the beginning of stability, conducted with the sort of energy, skill and resolve shown in the military action. Without that, our claims to serve the best interests of humanity will sound hollow and be judged wanting, and our national security will continue to face a major threat.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who has just laid out some of the issues that we face over Syria, which are very difficult. I also welcome the tough-minded clarity that my noble friend the Minister showed in his remarks on the threat posed by Russia.
I do not envy the task faced by the modern policymaker on national security. As others have said, we face a fast-shifting scene in which there are few obvious anchorages for a country such as ours. The international scene has greatly changed since Madeleine Albright’s short-lived “unipolar moment”—do noble Lords remember that? It has moved in a direction which is to the significant disadvantage of the West—which I think is still a useful and valid term—and in ways which I think are increasingly downright hostile to some of our fundamental interests. I very much fear that movement in that direction has still further to go. The picture is sombre and dangerous.
International terrorism is with us for the foreseeable future. As the right reverend Prelate just pointed out, the Middle East is in turmoil and heading in directions which are both dangerous for it and capable of sparking much wider conflagration. We should not forget how tense and fragile that area is. Europe in particular faces immediate and increasing aggressive activity on the part of Russia, as has been well said, which has spent its national capital on developing hybrid military capability and nuclear capabilities which, in the absence of much else, it shows an alarming tendency to want to use and exploit. It intends to do us harm inside our societies as well as externally. We should not forget that national security these days has to do with the integrity of our political systems as well as our safety. Declining powers—and Russia is a declining power—can do a lot of damage on their way down.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned China, and I want to say a little something about that. It is the other major autocracy, but the challenge it poses is much more complex, long-term and, frankly, important, even than Russia. If we do not meet it, we will not only fundamentally change, or allow the change of, the current international power balance but undo the western-originated framework of international laws and institutions that have been built up, essentially by the West, since the Second World War and under whose umbrella we shelter today. This is, as has been well said, the international law-abiding framework that we have at the moment. I will come back to that.
In deciding how the UK should respond to the challenges that it faces, we cannot escape a fundamental question about our own behaviour as a nation: do we want to be an active player, or do we basically want to opt out? I am not really getting at Brexit with this, much as I think there are elements of it that weaken our hand, but for me two events spell out the worry that I have. The UK suffered, as we know, an unprovoked, lawless and highly dangerous attack from Russia on our domestic soil—not in some far-off place but here, in Salisbury. We received from our allies very considerable backing and a display of solidarity, which has greatly strengthened our hand in dealing with the aftermath—and aftermath there will be; we are far from finished with this story.
In this context, I wish that the National Cyber Security Centre had not waited until now to make known to a wider audience its concerns about Russian penetration of our networks, with the implicit threat of a forthcoming cyberattack on our critical national infrastructure. Cocooning people from the risks that they face until they become imminent does no service. People who live in ignorance will harbour a false sense of security, are likely to be less resilient to attack than they could and should be and will undervalue the help that they receive from others.
This is my point: the polling on the UK’s military participation in upholding the international ban on the use of chemical weapons in Syria shows uncomfortably lukewarm popular support for UK participation. I know that some people will say that that had to do with the question of consulting Parliament; that is true, but only up to a point. There are elements to it and it betokens a lack of trust in government—I am not talking about this Government, but government generally—for some time on the part of the public. It needs to be fixed by much more frank discussion than we get about the issues we face.
My worry about the polling is that it tells us that the public do not seem to see that, if the UK opts out of joining its allies in defending principles it has authored and indeed upheld in the past, it will get less in return. Solidarity is reciprocal. Mr Trump may not be the nation’s favourite President but, as has just been said, the United States’ commitment to European security upholds our freedoms and the Prime Minister is quite right to seek to get on with him. There are some fundamentals here that we should not forget, because nobody ever influenced anybody by holding their nose.
Far from opting out, this country needs to give real substance to the slogan “global Britain”. Perceptions of weakness increase the dangers we face. Being global is not primarily about new trade ties or reviving Commonwealth links, welcome as these are; it is about facing up to the real security challenges. We have done well in combating the terrorist threat and successive Governments deserve credit, though there is still much to be done on the integration front. I also endorse what has been said about the importance of policing in this context. It is not enough simply to ring-fence the counterterrorism capability in this area. We are active in helping defend the security of the NATO area against Russian provocations and harassment. Those two important contributions bear directly on our own security. But on the other hand, the UK has not been in the forefront on Ukraine, which, among other things, is about the rule of law on our own continent, and rather important. We have yet to have our cyberdefences truly tested, although I acknowledge and support the fact that serious work has been done in this area. However, we do not yet know how successful we have been.
Our growing defence relationship with France has helped us with the defence of our own shorelines and skies, but we should listen to the increasingly urgent calls of our senior officers for more money for defence. The Government tell us that it is their first duty, and my goodness, they need to make good on that. Frankly, it is hard to know where to start, but for my money I would certainly like to see a significant regrowth in the size and capability of the Royal Navy. That is because some of the greater challenges we face lie in the Far East—I come back to China. The main burden undoubtedly falls on the Americans, but there is reciprocity in all of that, and if we do not make a contribution as European allies—and we are rich enough to do so—we cannot expect the same degree of support we have had hitherto in Europe. We also need to develop our relations with countries like Japan and South Korea.
Let us be clear about what is at stake. China is a politico-military-economic challenge. Most Europeans, the UK included, have focused on China as a marketplace—import and export. But China is making an undisguised effort to become the greatest technological power in the world. The one belt, one road initiative brings a Chinese investment strategy, which includes converting debt into equity stakes in the economies of the countries along the route—with the attendant political influence that will bring—right to the borders of Europe.
Part of maintaining our autonomy is to develop our own technological capabilities, and we are well placed to compete in several areas, provided we get on with and implement an industrial strategy worthy of the name. We have to participate in the fourth industrial revolution with every sinew we have available. It is crucial in the end to our capacity to build our national security. That agenda and national prosperity are closely related.
What we should not do, however, is fail to be hard-headed about the ownership of valuable intellectual property, the handing over of which the Chinese have made a condition of entry into their market. We have to resist this, and we should focus not just on the protection of technologies with military or dual-use capabilities but on ones with transformative economic significance. The underpinning of future power is economic, as I said, and in short, we need a strategy. Do we, as allies, talk to each other about management of relations with China? I do not think so. I grant that it is not easy, given the Trump style, although some of the measures he is taking may well yield results. Long term, however, we need a western strategy, and I do not see it. That is one of the challenges to our future strength.
What I have just been talking about is not national security in the narrower politico-military sense in which it is often used, but it is about the future organisation of the world that our offspring will inherit. The West has had it good for nigh on 70 years, with our rules and our way of life being the winning model. We cannot now take that for granted. We need to defend and promote it actively, and the UK should be there, doing its bit.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, two issues concern me today. The first is the legality of the Syrian air strikes, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for his remarks. In the past, he has made important contributions in this field in the other place. One of the most painful and onerous decisions that a Prime Minister has to take is to commit British troops to an act of war. Perhaps the use of air power may be easier than committing troops on the ground. We have examples of a reluctance to do this, particularly on the part of the Americans in recent years.
Under the charter, there are two grounds for such actions. The first is self-defence and the second is a decision of the UN Security Council. In recent years and now, because of the veto, it is hopeless to expect authority from the Security Council. As the Attorney-General, I faced this problem in Kosovo, and I believe that I also drafted the rules of engagement in Sierra Leone. In Kosovo, there was abundant evidence of the need for action: evidence of large-scale ethnic cleansing, murder and rape, causing suffering to many thousands. The precedents for acting without the authority of the United Nations were few. My Conservative predecessor had advised on the setting up of no-fly zones in the Iraq war to protect the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south. These were passive actions on our part. Our proposed action in Kosovo for large-scale NATO raids, repeated over what I believe were 69 days, was aggressive and of a different kind from the passive action for which I had some precedents. It was aggressive action, although I was persuaded against my better judgment by the former Attorney-General, Mr Dominic Grieve, to use as a substitute the word “proactive” in my book, otherwise it might not have been published.
Our Ministers and our Armed Forces have to obey international law. They needed my advice to give them the security that they were acting legally. The Prime Minister has repeated almost word for word the three conditions for action set out in my book. The first is widespread humanitarian distress, the second is that there is no practical alternative, and the third is that the use of force has to be proportionate and, in my words, the minimum necessary to achieve our objective. She has quoted, “These are the same criteria for the legal justification for the Kosovan action”. I earnestly hope that the support of the Prime Minister will not damage my future career.
As I told the House on Monday, legal advice cannot always be certain, but I presume that the Attorney-General believed that he had a respectable legal argument or, as is sometimes said, an arguable case, which would be enough to satisfy the Armed Forces that they were acting legally. In international law, I could not go further than that. Some distinguished academic lawyers have expressed their dissent. I am comforted that that most eminent of lawyers, the late Lord Bingham, in his book The Rule of Law, went no further than to comment that the doctrine of overwhelming humanitarian disaster is controversial. That was the only comment he made in a detailed analysis of the law generally. Having warned my Prime Minister of the possibility of legal challenge, it transpired that I had to act as leading counsel for the United Kingdom to respond to the challenge of an action by Yugoslavia against the United Kingdom along with, I believe, eight other NATO countries as defendants, before the International Court at The Hague. It was Yugoslavia’s attempt to stop the bombing by getting an injunction so to do. To my regret, the court did not deliver judgment on the legality of our actions. I trust that the Attorney-General, in his advice to Ministers, dealt with the possibility of a challenge by a country with an appropriate status before the court.
The mischief we are dealing with is the abhorrent use of chemical weapons, banned by the consensus of the international community under the Geneva Convention protocol in 1928. Some 10 years ago, I had the pleasure of addressing the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. The spirit of the conference for maintaining the ban on chemical weapons was absolutely solid and therefore we must be very careful that there is no departure from that. The charter of the United Nations regrettably does not provide adequate cover where a wrong-doing state has the umbrella support of a veto-wielding nation. That goes to the very heart of the problem in Kosovo and now. In Cape Town 10 years ago and in St Petersburg last October, I tried to raise before the committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union the need to reform the charter of the United Nations. That was a bridge too far for other countries, and perhaps ourselves.
My second point concerns the need for the approval of the House of Commons. Given the heavy build-up of briefing over seven days, the element of surprise would not have been lost in any event. They would have lost nothing except the grim possibility of losing the vote in the House of Commons if it were consulted. This is the real reason the House of Commons was not consulted. In February 2006, Lord Mayhew of Twysden and I, both former Attorney-Generals, gave evidence to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. At the time it was engaged in investigating evidence for its report, Waging War: Parliament’s Role and Responsibility. We both came to the conclusion that the use of the royal prerogative to go to war, save in exceptional circumstances and emergencies, was outdated. We agreed that the consent of the House of Commons should be required first. The committee accepted our advice. A convention was established by the decisions of three Prime Ministers, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, to consult the House of Commons. Given that committing our Armed Forces is so fundamental, I do not believe that the Government were right to put the convention to one side and not get the support of the House of Commons.
I end with what I believe was the most important statement made in the debate in the other place: what next?
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. I should like to concentrate on the Government’s National Security Capability Review, which was published on 28 March. In my judgment, it is a document of considerable significance for two reasons, one of them explicit and the other implicit. I shall deal with the explicit reason first, which, among other things, has direct resonance for the Syrian operation last Saturday.
Little noticed in the rather scant media coverage of the capability review was the declaration that its proposed new way of making policy and reaching decisions on overseas and defence policy would be “Chilcot compliant”—those are the exact words. In other words, the review has absorbed the lessons of the 2003 Iraq war as laid out in the July 2016 Chilcot report. Chilcot compliance rests on the so-called “Chilcot checklist”, which regrettably is not set out in the capability review but can be found as an appendix to the Government’s response of 10 January 2018 to the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs report on Chilcot. It contains 10 items, and in my judgment they comprise an important element in assessing the processes by which the Prime Minister, the National Security Council and her Cabinet reached the decision that the RAF Tornados should unleash their cruise missiles in the early hours of 14 April. It is the first time that a substantial politico-military decision has been taken by a British Government against the backdrop of a checklist or anything like it.
Perhaps I may offer a swift summary of the Chilcot checklist. The first is vision: why do we care; what does this mean for British interests; what are the results of acting or doing nothing? Secondly, analysis: what is happening now; what are your sources of ground truth/evidence; have assumptions been exposed to analytical tools or external challenge? Thirdly, scenario: what might happen next? Fourthly, options: what should we do? Fifthly, legal implications: how do we ensure that action is lawful; how will you ensure that any legal basis remains sound if circumstances change? Sixthly, policy and strategy: what does success look like? Seventhly, resources: what do we need to deliver? Eighthly, planning and doing: have you planned for a range of possible contingencies? Ninthly, policy performance: how will you measure and evaluate success/failure? Tenthly, evaluation: is the policy working?
Did Her Majesty’s Government follow their own prescriptions in the aftermath of the appalling chemical attack on Douma? When we debated the Prime Minister’s Statement in the Chamber on Monday, I put this question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. She replied:
“I can certainly assure the noble Lord that the lessons from the Chilcot report have been learned and we have paid attention to it”.—[Official Report, 16/10/18; col. 1034.]
Perhaps the noble Earl the Minister, when he winds up, can elaborate a little on this point.
Maybe surprisingly, the Chilcot checklist is silent on the key question of whether the House of Commons should have a pre-attack debate and vote. Here, as the Leader of the House made plain on Monday, the Government’s decision not to hold such a debate was based on a passage contained in the The Cabinet Manual: A Guide to Laws, Conventions and Rules on the Operation of Government. The key paragraph in the manual is as follows:
“In 2011, the Government acknowledged that a convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate”.
The Prime Minister, as it were, invoked the emergency clause to justify putting the convention aside in this instance.
In my view, although all my instincts lean towards the desirability of pre-attack debates and votes, the Prime Minister has a case over last weekend’s strike in Syria, even though I am sure she would have secured House of Commons approval had she taken the question to MPs ahead of the attack. There will now be a wider debate—it has already started—on the constitution and military action, with the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour shadow Cabinet pressing for a war powers Act. However, I am sure that, even if Parliament passed such a measure, it too would have an emergency clause embedded in it.
A first step on which perhaps we can all agree could be the bringing together of all the papers, paragraphs and checklists that deal with this hugely important question into a single document. I would value the Minister’s thoughts on that when he replies.
I suggested a moment ago that there was a significant implicit ingredient running through the pages of the National Security Capability Review. It is, I think, the recognition—here I disagree, although I am reluctant to do so, with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—that we are entering the fifth year of the second cold war, which began in March 2014 with Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Naturally it is different from what the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, recently called the “classic Cold War”. Its context is different, the ideological clash has mutated, although not entirely, into something else, and the instruments are changed, as are the metrics—for example, what level does a Russian cyberattack have to reach before it triggers Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty?
However, there is one grim and dangerous continuity between Cold War I and cold war II: the possibility of a serious unintended escalation. I recently re-read the paper on escalation which the Joint Intelligence Committee produced in the weeks following the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. It examined what it called,
“the process by which any hostilities, once started, might expand in scope and intensity, with or without the consent of Governments”.
The misreading of each other’s intentions that might trigger unintended conflict is very much the worry of our own times.
What we need is cool and careful thinking from today’s equivalents of the great George Kennan in the early years of the first Cold War, out of which came the doctrine of “containment”. For I fear that this cold war, like its predecessor, will be a long haul, requiring care, wisdom and nerve-keeping of the highest order. Those of us who grew up in the first Cold War under the shadow of the bomb, as children of the uranium age, know just how difficult and delicate is the task of containment. It is crucial that successor generations find the level of patience and foresight required to rise to the level of events.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, threats and challenges to the United Kingdom’s national security are more geographically diverse and complex than at any time in recent memory. Our resilience, our alliances and our capabilities are being tested on a daily basis in the Middle East, in north Africa, on NATO’s eastern flank, in the western Balkans and in Asia by states such as Russia, by cyber-capable countries such as North Korea, China and Iran, and by terrorist networks such as ISIS.
I welcome and support the Prime Minister’s decision to take military action against the Assad regime for its latest use of chemical weapons. I had the privilege of working in the coalition Government and I had many opportunities to work with the then Home Secretary. I know that she would not have taken the decision to intervene militarily lightly and that her guiding principle would have been the UK’s national interest, not anyone’s tweet or whim.
I have been disappointed by the extent to which some have been prepared to doubt the Prime Minister and the assessment of our intelligence agencies, and, in the same breath, to gullibly buy into Russian propaganda and disinformation. Our intelligence agencies work on our behalf around the clock to keep this country safe, and, from my experience, they do so with the utmost integrity and with a deep personal and institutional commitment to the United Kingdom’s values and the law.
I hope that the strikes in Syria inflicted damage on the regime’s ability to mount chemical attacks and on its sense of impunity. However, to succeed in Syria we must go well beyond surgical strikes. There has to be a comprehensive strategy for Syria and for the region. I hope that the Minster will share the Government’s plan and thinking in this regard.
I put it to the Minister that if our aims are to uphold the Chemical Weapons Convention and prevent the use of these weapons in future conflicts, the ultimate deterrent would be the sight of Syrian leaders in the dock, facing prosecution for their actions. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK will not support a peace process that includes amnesty for war crimes in Syria, which include not only the use of chemical weapons but the regime’s policy of sieges, starvation, barrel bombs, attacks on hospitals and the systematic use of rape and sexual violence? That is not to mention almost half a million Syrians who have perished over the last seven years and millions who have been displaced. As Human Rights Watch put it yesterday, accountability should not be “bargained away” in peace talks.
We are all aware that Russia is using its Security Council veto to block the referral of Syria to the International Criminal Court. However, given that the UN General Assembly has proved willing to set up an international, impartial and independent mechanism to investigate war crimes in Syria, does the Minister see any possibility of a further resolution in the General Assembly to establish a special ad hoc tribunal for Syria?
I note that the United Kingdom has provided £200,000 towards the start-up costs of the investigative mechanism. Given that its estimated budget for 2018 is $14 million, I hope that our Government will be prepared to increase their funding significantly. I hope too that if there is any scope for the UK to pursue prosecutions of war crimes in Syria through our domestic courts, under universal jurisdiction, the Government will wholeheartedly pursue all such avenues. This is not only a moral issue and an issue of human dignity but a question of national security, since Syria will not be stable over the long term without some measure of justice and accountability.
To all those who consider that to be Utopian thinking, I point to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Not only was the tribunal set up while the war was ongoing in 1993 but it eventually brought to justice many of those responsible for war crimes. Even Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, who was one of the signatories of the Dayton peace accords and therefore as seemingly untouchable as Assad may appear to be today, died in The Hague facing prosecution.
Sadly, Russian aggression and disruption have found bedfellows in other parts of the world beyond Damascus. In the western Balkans, Russia has driven a coach and horses through the decades of hard work and commitment that we and our allies put into stabilising the region. Russia has blatantly infiltrated and corrupted institutions and, in some cases, political leaders there. Yet the strategic myopia and political inertia of the European Union has served the region to the Kremlin on a silver plate. General Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO troops in the Balkans in the 1990s, recently wrote:
“The Russians are working to foment anti-EU and anti-NATO sentiment. They are supporting extremist groups and dispensing targeted military aid”.
He went on to say:
“The Kremlin has also fanned the flames of ethnic division through disinformation campaigns that pit Orthodox Christian populations against Muslims, intentionally stoking the tensions that fueled the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s”.
I welcome the Western Balkans Summit that will be hosted in London in July this year. I hope that the Minister will share with the House the Government’s strategy for countering Russia’s actions in this region, including the information warfare that has been unleashed in the region on a scale not seen since the dark days of Stalin’s assault on Yugoslavia in 1948.
In this context, I welcome the BBC’s decision to reinstate the BBC World Service in Serbian. However, BBC World News remains behind an effective paywall in the Balkans, Baltics and Russia’s neighbourhood, where there is the greatest need to counter Russian disinformation. The same is also true in sub-Saharan Africa. Will the Government consider additional funding to address this issue so that we do not leave the field wide open to Russian misinformation in particular? When it comes to national security, defending and promoting our values is as important as the defence of territory and borders.
Finally—and I know that this topic merits a whole debate on its own—while we are fighting against violent extremism and defending our country and our interests against Russia, we should not lose sight of the long-term strategic challenge that China represents. To put it into perspective—and many noble Lords will know more about this than I do—China’s belt and road initiative will not only connect 80-plus countries and be funded by a pot of money that is 10 times the size of the IMF and World Bank funds combined but will involve major permanent infrastructure and the expansion of cultural ties and defence exports. China’s growing power will bring with it new norms and standards, which will inevitably have an impact on the rules-based international system on which our own societies depend. When we take this into account, alongside China’s growing military and cyber capabilities, the scale of the challenge becomes clear. So I hope that, before the end of this parliamentary Session, we might have an opportunity for a separate debate on the long-term UK policy towards China and the security challenges that we and our allies face.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this debate in a sense has three dimensions: one is to discuss the transformed security environment in which we see ourselves; the second is the transformed position of the UK in the world; and the third is the appropriate response.
I note that the first report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, published last month, refers to,
“major changes to the wider security environment (including the election of the Trump Administration … and the UK’s decision to leave the European Union); intensifying and diversifying threats to the UK’s security”.
The National Security Adviser told the committee that leaving the EU means that,
“the UK is now working in a ‘different context’ on foreign and security policy matters”.
The committee quotes Sir John Sawers, a former National Security Adviser, in an interview with Prospect magazine, concluding that the combined effect of an erratic and distracted Washington and withdrawing from the EU required a major reformulation of the UK’s role in the world. He said:
“One thing I don’t think we can accept is Britain adrift. A Britain without a major strategic anchor in the world”.
The report goes on to note the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, the rising asymmetric threats from Russia and the increasingly assertive nature of Chinese foreign and security policy, as well as rising cyber criminal and terrorist threats. It could have noted also the long-term threat of disorder and conflict in Africa, combined with the continuing population increase on that continent, leading to an uncontrollable flow of refugees and migrants northwards across the Mediterranean. That represents the real long-term threat of immigration, not the prospect of a limited increase in Poles and Romanians coming to Britain.
The Government’s answer to calls for a new international strategy to fit the changing international context has been to talk about a “global Britain”. The Foreign Secretary has spelled that out a little by referring to a return to east of Suez, 50 years after we left, sending an aircraft carrier group through the Malacca Strait into the South China Sea and strengthening what he calls our two major bases in Bahrain and Diego Garcia.
Last month, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the other place published a report on global Britain which said:
“The most frequent complaint we have heard from several witnesses is that the only thing that is clear about Global Britain is that it is unclear what is means, what it stands for or how its success should be measured”.
The report goes on:
“No minister during our inquiry was able to give the Committee a definitive explanation of ‘Global Britain’”.
Just last week, the committee published a further report to try to flesh out what the concept of global Britain means for the Commonwealth, since the Foreign Secretary himself has failed to do so. I note here that the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office told the committee that the Commonwealth is not a top priority for the FCO, saying that although it is a very important organisation to the United Kingdom, it is,
“not as important, in the next period, as the neighbourhood”—
by which of course he means the European continent—
“China or the United States”.
There are elements of illusion in UK government policy across the board. Yesterday, we heard the Secretary of State for Transport telling us that there will be absolutely no problems in border control and so on when we leave the European Union because it was so clearly in the interest of those on the continent to maintain open borders with the UK. Liam Fox assures us that we are absolutely committed to free trade and that China and India are waiting to be helpful to us, even though both countries have spelled out their hard determination to defend their interests and strike a hard bargain. The Prime Minister herself talks about the importance of the Commonwealth, while the British Government do their best to deport long-term Commonwealth residents.
How does the concept of a global Britain apply to the Middle East, given the multiple conflicts and challenges in that region? The immediate focus for this debate is of course the Syrian conflict, but we are all aware of the potential for that conflict to spill over into the rest of the region given the number of outside actors involved. In the next four weeks, as we have heard in various briefings, we have the possibility that, on 12 May, President Trump will refuse to renew the US waiver on sanctions on Iran. We also have in May the 70th anniversary of Israeli independence, and the demonstrations in Gaza will continue and build up to that. There are elections in Lebanon—we all know how sensitive those can be—and now we have the announcement of an election in Turkey, intended to consolidate further President Erdoğan’s authoritarian regime.
What is Britain’s response to the many instabilities of the region, beyond selling as many arms as possible to the Sunni Gulf monarchies and providing logistical support to Saudi weapons systems operating over Yemen? Can the Minister tell us: what is the strategic rationale for expanding the British naval base in Bahrain? Are we, in effect, committing ourselves to the Sunni side of the Sunni-Shia divide in the region by accepting the Bahraini Government’s offer to pay for the expansion of the base? Are Her Majesty’s Government still pursuing an active dialogue with the Iranians, as we should be doing, in spite of the difficulties of dealing with that regime? Do Her Majesty’s Government intend to increase the UK’s military commitment to the Gulf further, including by stationing a carrier group there for extended periods when available, as the Foreign Secretary has suggested? If so, what will be the strategic rationale for that?
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in opening this debate, spoke of British global leadership and our robust international partnerships—although leadership on our own and working in partnership with others are not entirely compatible approaches to Britain’s role in the world. The concept of global Britain, as I understand it, is about an image of Britain standing alone, in the lead and at the head of the Commonwealth, apart from the merely European powers on the continent. We should remember that, in negotiating the joint agreement with Iran, we operated very helpfully and very successfully as part of the E3, in collaboration with the Russians, the Americans and others. Next week, I note, the E2—the leaders of France and Germany—will go to Washington to speak for Europe with the United States. Britain will be apart; we will be absent.
Geoffrey Howe, a foreign secretary of an entirely different quality from the present incumbent of that post, used to speak about the sharing of sovereignty, rather than the assertion of exceptional sovereignty. The rationale for the Syrian airstrike was, after all, the British commitment to maintaining a liberal international order, defending with others and in partnership with others the global rule of law. That is something that we on these Benches entirely and strongly support, although we are not entirely sure that such a position is consistent with the rejection of participation in our regional international order and with the particular objection that so many Conservatives appear to have to the regional rule of law, as represented by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.
Withdrawal from the European Union’s well-developed structures for co-ordinating foreign policy, defence policy and intelligence will weaken Britain’s robust international partnerships. I note that the report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy says that withdrawal will unavoidably weaken co-operation and intelligence, among other matters. Of course, all the more important co-operation will be in a darker international environment than it seemed two to three years ago, when we were discussing whether we stayed or left. The Government have so far said almost nothing about how they will manage future co-operation with our European partners, although the Prime Minister, in her Mansion House speech, tantalisingly suggested that we now wished to stay within the European Defence Agency—something which Liam Fox, when Secretary of State for Defence, was determined to take Britain out of, so at least that is a minor shift forward. Can the Minister say when the Government will inform Parliament and the public of their plans to continue co-operation in one form or another? I think there are 40 working groups in the common foreign policy and security network, which we will no longer be part of. My noble friend Lord Campbell has already raised the question of what our future relationship with PESCO will be.
The Government have talked about a new security treaty for internal security co-operation, necessary when we leave, to ensure that we remain within those structures. Do the Government begin to see the need for a new treaty to ensure that in foreign policy and security we will continue to co-operate? Perhaps he would like to reinvent the western European Union—from years of old, which only a few of us can still remember—providing at least some sort of mechanism for Britain outside the European Union in discussing these matters with others. We need something here. We need the Government to tell us what they intend. Without this, our international partnerships will become a good deal less robust than the Minister was suggesting.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I doubt that I can be either as comprehensive or indeed as controversial as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. This debate gives us an opportunity to examine what this country’s interests are in Syria, to look at the behaviour of some of our nominal allies and to examine what Her Majesty’s Government can do in the present situation. Obviously, we have an interest in stopping violent terrorists, whose activities in the Middle East have found echoes both in Europe and at home. Again, we should seek to restore far greater stability in Syria, which alone will allow and make possible the return of refugees and displaced people.
ISIS may have been largely defeated as a kind of government or a form of military organisation. Al-Nusra, however, is still strong and probably well-armed. Our allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf could cut off supplies of money and arms to al-Nusra; I just wonder whether we have taken steps to ask them to do so.
Our contribution to the recent military action can hardly be described as more than a small token. I do not think that it will greatly help stability, and I surmise that it has rallied many Syrians to Assad’s side. President Trump appears to say that no more external military intervention is likely to be needed. But we should consider very seriously the effect of western military action on Arabs and Muslims throughout the world. Those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria may now believe that they are permanent targets. What, then, are their friends and neighbours elsewhere in the world to think?
Peaceful conditions in Syria are essential before refugees will dare to go home. That will require the rebuilding of many homes. It will also require pragmatic peacebuilding. This concept has been quite fully explained in a recent issue of International Affairs from Chatham House. It may not be widely known, either in this House or outside, that the Syrian Government actually have a minister for reconciliation. I have met him twice in successive years. He is a medical doctor of very independent mind and with an independent background—that is, not a member of the Baath Party.
Turkey has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. I do not know how widely understood it is here that Turkey has occupied, by force, a large section of northern Syria, stretching from Jarabulus on the Euphrates to Afrin city. It has been using the services of a militia largely composed of former fighters from ISIS and al-Nusra. It is accused of settling Turks inside the occupied territory, which is a clear contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is also charged, in a report in today’s press, of victimising local Yazidis, again in the occupied area.
So one has to ask, is Turkey intending to extend and widen its recognised boundaries? The President of Turkey has made serious threats against places in Syria such as Manbij, Kobane and Jazira, and I cannot help feeling that this kind of behaviour is not welcome and does not befit a NATO member. We should recall that NATO was formed, and has continued, as an alliance for self-defence and for the protection of existing frontiers.
I turn now to what may be possible to be done by our Government. I fear that they have lost a certain amount of credibility already in and around Syria, but there may nevertheless be constructive steps that are still possible. For example, we could send envoys to Kobane and Jazira where they could see for themselves the remarkable social and democratic progress that has been made there. We should co-ordinate our diplomatic activity not only with Syria’s immediate neighbours but also with Iran, Russia and the United States, aiming to bring together the two possibly rival processes that have been going on in Geneva and Astana—a point mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. A second aim should be to secure the withdrawal to bases of the foreign forces already within Syria. We should also prepare for the lifting of sanctions to allow maximum reconstruction without unnecessary delays.
Lastly—and here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who has just left the Chamber—we should recall how full diplomatic relations were restored with Iran after this country had suffered the most terrible insult. Following that precedent, we should begin with renewing low-level representation in Damascus. After all, if we can have a full embassy in North Korea, then at least we might have a chargé d’affaires in Syria. With such a small start, we can gradually have far better information and be able to exert greater influence.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to talk between the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord West. One is a great humanitarian and the other is—what can I say?—a great human, in all respects.
I will try to be brief. I want to talk about some truths that I regard as being self-evident so will not need too much explanation. The first of those is that, for the last 20 years, Britain’s policy of intervention in the Middle East has resulted in failure and confusion. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the last sensible and successful intervention that we carried out, which was the first Gulf War, which had clear objectives and was effectively achieved. Since then, we have had Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. I hope that this latest intervention the other day is an exception to that dismal record of missed opportunities. The Prime Minister set out a clear limited objective, which appears to have been effectively completed, and in that lies hope.
My second self-evident truth is that diplomacy is not the art of angels. In practice, it settles rather deeper down the celestial scale, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me. Diplomacy is often a dirty business. It is not a choice of black and white or even a choice of greys. It is sometimes not a choice of doing good, but of finding the least harmful option. Sometimes, it requires us to dicker with the devil—even Assad.
Thirdly, foreign policy cannot succeed without a plan or a strategy and joined-up thinking based on real, long-term objectives—yes, Chilcot, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, was expounding to us earlier. Intervention cannot be based on a cry of “Something must be done”. That is not a policy or plan and it comes nowhere near a strategy. All too often, such intervention has been based not on a clear view of our national interest but on distressing media coverage. All too often, it has made matters worse and—I really hate to say this—all too often it has the prime purpose of allowing politicians to sleep comfortably with their consciences, deaf to the sound of gunfire that they have left behind—in Iraq and Libya, for instance.
My fourth self-evident truth is that we must accept that there are some problems, no matter how distressing or harmful, that we simply cannot resolve, no matter how good our intentions or how humanitarian the cause. If we cannot resolve them, sometimes it is better not to get involved—yes, to stand back and accept that there will be an outcome that is distasteful and distressing. Sometimes, we simply cannot make things better. I do not think that we can make Syria better. At least, we have failed to so far, so perhaps we should stop trying to pick this or that ally and instead place more emphasis on humanitarian support—a policy that we do so well and so generously.
Fifthly and finally, the hard truth is that if Assad is part of the problem, he is also part of the solution. The Government’s policy of absolutely refusing to talk to him or his regime is not simply pointless but positively counterproductive. That refusal undermines any ability that we have to find some sort of common ground. Our claim that we are not interested in “regime change” in Syria must ring rather hollow there given our track record. Those were precisely the words used by Mr Blair before he got us into Iraq. I listened very carefully and agreed with so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said earlier on on this issue. If we do not intend to change the regime, we must talk to it. It is likely to be so much more productive than simply throwing bombs at it.
Like most Members of this House, I spoke out and opposed the bombing proposed in Syria in 2013. It seemed too opaque in its objectives and too much like gesture politics. This bombing in recent days is different. It has been limited, precise and appears to have been effective. It had a clear objective, which was to oppose the use of chemical weapons. There are times when we must act forcefully and bravely and accept that there are risks in these matters.
My individual views matter not a jot in these matters, but for what they are worth I support this bombing, so long as it is the start of developing a clear policy of intervention with objectives and limitations—a policy that has been so terribly lacking in the past. If noble Lords will allow me to rather murder the words of Winston Churchill, this strike is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But with courage, wisdom, patience, statesmanship and the sensible support of our partners, it might at least mark a new beginning for us in that terrible area of the Middle East.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I want to first thank the Government for securing this very timely debate. It is important to discuss these issues.
Terrorism remains a tier 1 threat to us. We first became aware of the Islamist terror threat in the last few years of the 1990s. We unravelled a plot to bomb London and one to poison the north London water supply, but 9/11 was a wake-up call. It made us suddenly realise that the co-ordinated Islamist global threat of terrorism was real and had to be countered. So began, in a sense, our much deeper involvement in the arc of instability that runs from Bosnia right through to Kashmir.
In 2001, we invaded Afghanistan. I have to say, I think that that invasion was appropriate and correct. I was commander-in-chief. I remember being in Afghanistan with 3 Commando Brigade and a lot of Special Forces soldiers. I was amazed at the sheer scale of the terrorist training camps and, indeed, the laboratories trying to produce anthrax and such things in that benighted country. One needs to be clear that, in Afghanistan, although the Taliban worked very closely with al-Qaeda, it was not the same thing. The Taliban had no interest in carrying out terrorist attacks around the world; al-Qaeda’s sole interest was in doing just that. We demolished al-Qaeda and their Taliban associates in Afghanistan very quickly and drove the remnants of al-Qaeda into the FATA in northern Pakistan. We did that inside three months. I believe very firmly that we should have gone in there, but at that stage we should have cobbled together some political grouping to run Afghanistan—let us face it, Afghanistan has always been a shambles—and we should have got out and said, “If you start training masses of terrorists to get us again, we’ll come back”. However, we did not; we stayed there and became part of the problem. That has been the problem with us in all our dealings with this region: we have not thought through what to do when we won and changed regimes. Generally, we can win when we fight these people—we are far better at it—but it is what happens next that we are so bad at.
Of course, while we were still sitting in Afghanistan, we started the war in Iraq. I will not go into all the details of that, but I have to say that I was very surprised—I was the Chief of Defence Intelligence until about a year and a half beforehand—when weapons of mass destruction became the reason for the invasion. I was quite clear from my time with defence intelligence staff that there was no real threat from these weapons of mass destruction—I thought he might have had a few gas shells—so I was quite surprised to see this a year and a half later. There may have been many good reasons to go to war with Saddam: for example, every day he was trying to shoot down allied aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone; he was sending out emissaries across the world, trying to get hold of things; and he was treating his own people appallingly. I have to say, I do not think that WMDs were a good reason for the invasion.
Anyway, we embarked on that war with forces still in Afghanistan, so we had a war in two places. Once again, we had not thought through what would happen when we won. We were going to win—of course we could thrash a country such as Iraq—but we did not think through what we were going to do when we won. At a meeting, the Chiefs of Staff asked the Prime Minister what would happen next. The plan was called phase 4. We asked what phase 4 was. The Prime Minister, and others, assured us that the Americans had phase 4 under control. We, as the chiefs, said that we would like to see the plan; we never saw it, but— I will not go into detail—phase 4 was not under control. We did not know what would happen. We had changed another regime with no idea of what was going to happen. The Americans dismantled their army and said that anyone who had anything to do with the Baath Party should not be there. It was a shambles. Of course, Iraq then developed in the way we all know.
So, things were going wrong in Iraq and we were having a lot of difficulty down in Basra by then. There were a lot of forces from NATO countries that did not want to be involved in Iraq. We also had 27,000 troops in Northern Ireland that were suddenly not going to be there. I remember a general saying, “If you don’t use them, you lose them”. The idea of us doing more in Afghanistan then came up, so we created a second front in Afghanistan and decided to go into Helmand. We had no intelligence—as an ex-military man, I am used to lots of intelligence—in that area. Once again, it became very sticky and unpleasant. What was our long-term plan? I sat in meetings where people talked about not wanting drugs in the UK and wanting women to be educated. That was not the reason. It was extraordinary; we did not have a clear aim of what we wanted to do. I believe noble Lords are getting the thread of how I feel about what happens when we get involved in such places.
The only good thing that came out of that is that, over that period, the level of threat from terrorism is this country undoubtedly dropped. We had gone from “severe” to “substantial” by 2010. Then came the Arab spring. Why it is called that, I do not know, but if noble Lords think about what it has done to that benighted region, it is quite extraordinary. Again, I do not believe that our Government had a clear strategy for how they would handle the outcome of the Arab spring. After the removal of Gaddafi—a nasty and horrible man—Libya was a terrible mess. We were firmly involved in going there to stop the massacre of people in Benghazi, but—again—we had not thought through what we would do next. Now, the country has tribes fighting each other; it is not settled or stable. The problems in Yemen arose after the Arab spring and there was trouble in places such as Bahrain.
The real area of trouble, of course, was Syria. We saw the rise of Daesh, which I first came across in 2003. It came from Jordan after beheading a couple of people in the region and grew exponentially. It said that it wanted a caliphate, which was able to form in part of Iraq because the Sunnis had been badly treated by the Iraqi Government, in Syria and in the whole region. Again, we did not have a clear view of how we wanted to deal with Daesh. I think it right that we got involved in the alliance to start “attritting” it, and there is no doubt that the caliphate has disappeared now, but many of the people involved have bomb-burst. The result is that we have a higher terrorist threat to this country than at any time since 9/11.
As a number of speakers have said, and I agree, our Government have made a real error with Syria. We hate and loathe Assad—let us face it, he is a loathsome man—but we have not dealt with him. In the world of politics and realpolitik, you have to deal with nasty bastards. We have not done so. As the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, we have slightly indicated that we would like a regime change. That is fine; I would love a regime change to something nice, but my goodness, many of the opposition there are worse than Daesh. If they got in, we would end up with 6 million dead Christians, Alawites and refugees. It would be pretty catastrophic. That is a real worry that we need to think through.
I have said enough on terrorism. Many noble Lords have talked about Russia. It is an enigma. Why on earth does Putin act the way he does? I do not think that the West handled the outcome of the Ukrainian revolution and the taking of Crimea very well. We did not really understand Russia. We need to understand that Kiev and Crimea fought for centuries to gain that area. We showed a lack of understanding. We do not understand that the average Russian hates NATO. They think that it is an offensive alliance. We know that it is not, but that is what they think. I love the Russian people; they are great fun and have a great sense of humour—a black sense of humour—as do we. Any Russian knows his Government. Russians would find it amusing to think that their Government were not lying. That is almost what many of them expect their Government to do. They expect their Government to lie; that is what Governments do. We have to understand and get inside their mindset. I do not think we have done that.
A number of noble Lords have asked why Putin has done all the things he has done. I am not absolutely clear, but it is extraordinary and highly dangerous. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who is not in his place, said, there is no doubt that the policy of “de-escalation” that Putin started—in other words, when we start fighting they will fire a nuclear weapon because that will de-escalate the situation—is a very escalatory manoeuvre. It is very dangerous. He has spent a lot of money on nuclear and conventional weapons, yet his country has a GDP that is now about the size of Spain’s. That is not sustainable. That is a wartime economy. When there is not a war, wartime economies lead to collapse or to a war. We need to look at this and we need to be very worried.
I will not go into China. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, rightly pointed out one belt, one road. It is very interesting that Vanuatu, right down in the South Pacific, is becoming a Chinese base. The way China is expanding and moving is extraordinary. There are real worries there. Korea has been mentioned. I will not go through that either.
Again and again in this House, noble Lord and noble Baroness after noble Lord and noble Baroness have said that we have to spend more money on defence if we are taking this seriously. It seems as though one is talking in a vacuum. I could list almost every single debate in which I have spoken where this has been said, with support from around the House. It does not seem as though anything is happening. A lot of platitudes are mouthed about defence and security being the most important thing to any Government, but one is not seeing it happening. I find that extremely worrying.
The House would be very upset if I did not say that we need more ships, so I will say that we need more ships. However, we really do have to do something about defence spending. This has gone on too long. We are at a cliff edge and that is very dangerous for our nation.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the National Security Capability Review starts by saying:
“The world has become more uncertain and volatile since 2015”.
It goes on to talk about the new fusion doctrine. It says categorically:
“We will further strengthen and modernise Defence and the Armed Forces”.
All the right intentions are laid out right up front in dealing with strengthening our overseas network, expanding the communications team and enhancing cross-government funds. But what is the reality? It is the backdrop of Syria, where the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has estimated that 13.1 million people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance and that, as a result of the crisis, 5.6 million of them are in acute need. It also estimates that 6.1 million people have been internally displaced by the violence. This is a shocking scenario. In addition to the 13.1 million people estimated to be in need in Syria, the UN has recorded that 5.6 million refugees have fled the country due to the civil war.
When we had the awful chemical attacks and the world got to know about it, what really upset me was that President Trump called President Macron first. That is Britain’s loss of standing. It is for one reason only: Brexit. We have lost our standing in the world even before leaving the European Union. The USA and the UK have had the closest special relationship. How on earth did this happen? It would never have happened historically. I take it as an insult to our standing in the world that that happened.
The decision to deploy the Armed Forces using the prerogative power was absolutely right in this instance. If we had waited for a UN resolution we would not have got it because Russia would have vetoed it. In fact, I remember in the summer of 2003 my late father General Bilimoria’s last visit to Britain straight after the Iraq war and invasion. He was asked by a journalist, “General, should the West have invaded Iraq?” He replied, “Absolutely not without a United Nations resolution”. He was absolutely right then, but I do not think that Theresa May could have waited for a United Nations resolution and if she had she would not have got it.
Since 2015, looking at the SDSR 2015, defence policy has been defined by the words “global reach”. But then there is this funding gap of supposedly £20 billion. Could the noble Earl confirm that there is this gap? Could he also reassure us, following all the rumours for months that HMS “Bulwark”, HMS “Albion” and 28 Wildcat helicopters are going to be chopped, and that we are going to lose 1,000 soldiers from the Royal Marines, that that is not going to happen, against the backdrop of the threats we face?
The other aspects of the warfare we face are, yes, the jihadi terrorism of the Islamic State, but also the hybrid warfare that is being practised by President Putin. Instead of the piecemeal cuts that have been going on, we need to increase our spending—as we have heard on all sides of the House—from 2% to not just 2.5% but to 3%, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and others said. Will the noble Earl confirm that that is what we should be doing? Our national security strategy is failing to keep pace with emerging threats. We need more direction. In fact, government committees and parliamentary committees are saying that. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy said that an “honest conversation” on increasing defence spending was needed if the Government were to match their stated ambitions. Does the Minister agree?
The vote for Brexit has pushed the UK into a different context. A lot of the talk now is about how we will continue maintaining defence and security links with the EU. Let us be honest: the peace that has existed in Europe over the last seven decades has been not just because of NATO but because of the existence of the European Union as well. The fact that it exists has created the peace, but the mechanisms that exist within the European Union have also helped the peace. Could the Minister tell us what we are going to do to try to maintain all those important links?
The report from the committee talked not only about the rise of ISIS but about the refugee crisis; the tensions in North Korea, Iran and the South China Sea; increasing Russian aggression, and the impact of technology and cyberattacks. There is also radicalisation, which continues to be a huge threat. The defence committee has very clearly said that 3% should be the figure.
We are finally getting two aircraft carriers. It is shocking, in the world we have had since the awful SDSR 2010, when Liam Fox, our great Trade Secretary, was the Defence Secretary—it was the worst SDSR in living memory in this country, wrecking our Armed Forces—that our total Armed Forces now are 155,000. On top of that, they are all currently short-staffed. There is a deficit of 5.6%, or more than 8,000 personnel. Will the Minister confirm that there is this deficit? If we add the reserves and the Gurkhas we have a total service personnel of 195,000. The SDSR 2015 said that we were going to increase Army numbers to 95,000. We are now going backwards. Could the Minister explain what is going on here? While the threat is increasing, we are reducing the numbers of staff. I appreciate that important things such as the nuclear deterrent are being maintained, but is everything else being maintained to the extent required?
The Royal Navy and the RAF are 10% short of their recruitment targets. The Army’s shortfall at times has been 30%. This is another thing that upset me about the attacks. The fact we had to attack was bad enough in itself, but there is more and more an accusation that we have out-of-date equipment. The Tornadoes have been around since 1979. The British forces, in this joint attack with France and America, were, quite frankly, playing a supporting role when we should have been right there at the front. Our Royal Navy destroyer, HMS “Duncan”, was moved away while the French ship fired on the Syrian targets. Where was Britain’s £1 billion vessel? It has space on its deck for a cruise missile launcher, but that was axed, supposedly to save cash. Could the Minister confirm that that happened? It was the Rafale jets, along with the Americans and supported by Mirage 2000s, that were at the forefront. People have said that it was an America and France show where we played second fiddle. I take that as an insult, because we have some of the finest Armed Forces in the world. We should never play second fiddle. We should be right there in front leading the way.
Meg Hillier, the Labour chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, has said that tensions have never been so bad with Russia and that it was critical that the Armed Forces were fully staffed. However, the National Audit Office report shows that the Armed Forces are woefully below complement. The Ministry of Defence needs to take a long, hard look at its current approach. Without more innovative methods to retain staff, there are going to be big gaps in capability and the overstretching of already hard-working Armed Forces.
As I mentioned earlier, we know that recruitment is almost facing a crisis, and on top of recruitment is morale. The latest survey shows that 58% of service personnel are either neutral or unsatisfied with service life in general. Again, morale is the most important thing, along with esprit de corps, in the Armed Forces. On a positive side, I am delighted, with CHOGM taking place and Prime Minister Modi here, that the UK and India want to continue to strengthen their ties in respect of their armed services, their defence and security relationships and their joint exercises; with officers from both armed services at the RCDS, the National Defence College and staff colleges in both countries and the conducting of joint exercises throughout. This is absolutely good news and it should be encouraged even more.
The lack of engineers is another area of concern. There is a shortfall of 2,400 engineers and a shortfall of intelligence analysts. The RAF, which we are all so proud of, is celebrating its centenary. It is a phenomenal institution that is an example to the whole world, yet there is a shortfall of 800 pilots.
It is not only the Armed Forces that are vital to national security: it is the police as well. Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary, stood up to the police and everyone said how brave she was, but she was standing up to the wrong people. We should have been increasing our police forces, but we have cut them by over 20,000. We have cut neighbourhood policing and our armed police officers. Now it is so reassuring to see two armed officers at every entrance to Parliament. If there had been two armed officers at every entrance, our police officer would not have lost his life. We have not taken our security and our armed police officers seriously enough: we need to bolster our police forces far more and appreciate them far more. Neighbourhood policing through the internet is all very well, but there is nothing that makes up for police officers on the ground: the British bobby, respected around the world, is what is required, not cuts to the police forces.
In conclusion, we have cuts in our Armed Forces when threats are increasing and cuts in police officers when threats are increasing, yet national security is meant to be the number one priority of a Government. We need to increase spending and prioritise the Armed Forces for 3% GDP straightaway and bring our police forces back up to strength to where they were before all the cuts; then we will be able to face all of these awful threats—this hybrid warfare—whether they are from Russia, China, jihadi terrorism or anywhere else.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Library for its most excellent brief for this debate. It is well worth keeping, and I shall add to it the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, which I found absolutely fascinating historically.
I support, for its clinical efficiency, Saturday’s punitive strike on Syria’s chemical weapons capability. However, the motive that Assad could have had to carry out the Douma attack eludes me. Why, when he was so clearly winning, would he have risked invoking the wrath and retribution of the West? On the other hand, to do so was clearly to the advantage of the Islamist fighters. I hope that the international investigators do find evidence that there was a chlorine attack and that it could have come only from Assad.
I watched, as many others would have done, the extensive briefing on Saturday afternoon from the Pentagon. It revealed a fundamental contradiction in Western strategy. There were two conflicting statements of aim: the first was the elimination of ISIS in Syria as a priority and the second was not to interfere in the Syrian civil war. These two aims were echoed in the Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament on 16 April. I was amazed to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House say on Monday:
“Our position remains that we do not believe there can be a sustainable peace in Syria with Assad in power”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—who knows a thing or two about diplomacy, as well as about political operations—said,
“we have parroted that slogan for too long”.—[Official Report, 16/4/18; col. 1030.]
I will not blame my noble friend the Leader of the House personally—I am sure that she was quoting from some out-of-date FCO brief and at least my noble friend Lord Ahmad did not repeat that today—but I hope she will allow me to explain why she was wrong. The fact is that from shortly after the uprisings started in Syria in March 2011, the civil war in Syria has been a struggle of the secular Assad Government against political Islam. Political Islam is the process of translating, by jihad—or struggle—the fundamentalist Sunni Islamic beliefs of Wahhabism, which originated in the 18th century, into theocratic government in Muslim countries, and eventually throughout the world. This is religious government based on Sharia law. It is by definition the antithesis of democracy as it perpetuates power by denying the right of the people to elect their own Government and to change the law.
There are many manifestations of political Islam. They all stem from the Salafist movement, which sought to implement Wahhabism. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, was originally just a terrorist organisation. Subsequently, it has become a political front for political Islam in the West, rather as Sinn Féin did for the IRA. Of course, it was used by the CIA initially, at the time of Nasser, to fight communism in the Middle East and later to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. The best-known jihadist groups of Sufi Islam include: Hamas, founded in 1987; al-Qaeda, founded in 1988, Taliban, founded in 1994, Boko Haram, founded in 2002, al-Shabaab, founded in 2006 and al-Nusra, founded in 2012. Then, in 2014, ISIS claimed world leadership when it was formed in Syria from al-Qaeda.
Sir John Jenkins, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has argued that any attempt to place Islamists,
“on some scale of relative extremism or moderation”,
is “almost worthless”. He said that in a lecture in America in November, and he was the person who was set the job of studying the Muslim Brotherhood by David Cameron. The aspiration of ISIS is for world domination, and this rejects the concept, the legitimacy and even the continued existence of the nation state on which international law and international relations, and thus our concept of civilisation, are based.
The Russians got directly involved in Syria in September 2015, when they bombed anti-Assad rebels who were, so mistakenly, backed by the West. At that time Assad was under considerable pressure. By constantly repeating the refrain, “There is no future for Assad in Syria”, the West was always risking the arrival of somebody else to help him, and it was Russia which did so. But we have to face the fact that without the Russian intervention, Syria might now be under Islamist rule. Assad is now well on the way to regaining control of his whole country, and the sooner we recognise this and start talking to him, as other noble Lords have said, the sooner we can hope to influence that part of the Middle East. Iran, Syria’s other great supporter, has its own, ultimately theocratic, Shia government with Hezbollah, founded as a Shiite political movement in 1982, after Israel invaded Lebanon to root out the PLO. Now it is a powerful and very big military force defending Shias against Sunni hegemony in that part of the world. In the Middle East, it is astride both Iran and Lebanon.
There is a fundamental choice in many Muslim countries between theocracy and secular government, and secular government will more than likely be authoritarian. Authoritarianism is not something we like, but given a choice between authoritarianism and theocracy, I believe that authoritarianism is preferable from a world point of view. That is a fact we have to accept. We have to face what both the Russians and the Chinese fully realise: that while most Muslims are not Islamists, all Islamists present themselves as Muslims, and this gives them a great advantage in winning the hearts and minds of Muslim populations. Western foreign policy has been woeful. It has enabled both Russia, economically bust as it is, and China, under its very strong new leader, to get into the driving seat, thus reducing what I regard as the benign influence of western liberal democracy.
The National Security Capability Review states:
“The border is a vital asset for our national security”.
The security of our national borders is shared between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. In the Ministry of Defence I have considerable confidence, but I believe—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord West, would agree—that we need more small ships to protect the border, because I foresee, perhaps as early as this summer, large numbers of people trying to migrate by sea, as they have in other parts of the world, into Britain. Something has to be done about that and I do not know what plans the Government have.
As for the Home Office, it is now 12 years since the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, famously declared on 23 May 2006 that the Home Office was “not fit for purpose”. It is sad and deeply worrying that this is clearly still the case; and I am not talking just about the deplorable matter of the “Empire Windrush”. Many things need to be done for the protection of our borders. My final recommendation is that the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons start to look into that in detail—if I can give them any help, I will be delighted to do so.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. I have discovered that there are a lot of informal clubs and groups around your Lordships’ House; one of the smallest is that of former National Security Advisers, since it has only one member. I hope noble Lords will not feel that that disqualifies me from contributing to the debate. I welcome the fact that the debate looks at national security as a whole. One of the intentions behind setting up the National Security Council, as I did for David Cameron in 2010, was that it should co-ordinate across the whole of government all the different arms—security, defence and foreign policy—and assemble around the Prime Minister and senior Ministers all the key advisers, including, for the first time in a structured way, the intelligence community heads, to have systematic discussion across this whole range with plenty of challenge, and a forum to really take decisions. That is just as well since, as many noble Lords have said, we have more simultaneous threats to the security of this country now than at any time since the Cold War.
If we look at the immediate situation, as others have said, the Islamist terrorist threat is clearly high. It is not an existential threat to this country but it needs continued vigilance. The international security system put in place by our predecessors in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War is under real stress, particularly from countries that do not accept the rules that were laid down there. One of the most interesting recent comments on national security was from US Defense Secretary Mattis in presenting the US defence strategy a couple of months ago. He said that,
“great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security”.
That is a phrase that we too should ponder in this House.
Russia has been at the heart of this debate, quite rightly. I can say from my own experience that we have taken a tougher approach to Russia in the UK since the Litvinenko poisoning than any other European country. We understood from that time that the Russia of President Putin regards the West as an adversary; that he is playing a zero-sum game; that he will push wherever he senses weakness; that he is creating a sphere of influence, in the classic sense, around Russia; and that he is actively trying to sow discord and division among his adversaries. Russia is deliberately developing tools to blur the lines between war and covert manipulation. The record on that is pretty clear, from the Russian intervention in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea, the interference in Donbass, the pressure on the Baltic states, the increasingly blatant manipulation of our media and our electoral processes in the West, the intervention in Syria in support of President Assad—all of that points in the same direction.
And then there was the poisoning of the Skripals. Whoever in Moscow authorised that—I agree that there is no plausible alternative to it being authorised and conducted from Moscow—miscalculated very badly. I assume they thought it would be like the Litvinenko case: a few Russian spies would be thrown out, the world would move on and a chilling message would have been sent to Russian traitors around the world. I think they miscalculated the growing sense of unease that the previous recklessness of Russian behaviour has generated in many countries. People saw it as another confirmation of a pattern of behaviour and therefore there has been a very strong and supportive international reaction. I applaud the way the Government have handled that very difficult case with determination, firmness and effective rallying of a large international consensus—much larger, in my view, than the Russians expected. They have been wrong-footed, and they have reacted with a classic combination of sarcasm and dismissal, coupled with menace and obfuscation. We now need to go through what has been announced in terms of implementing financial measures to show that this was not simply a one-off expulsions effort, but that there are real consequences for Russian money in London and other capitals.
At a most inconvenient moment for Russia, their Syrian allies chose to use chemical weapons in Douma. I agree with other noble Lords who have said that it is incomprehensible why Assad should have felt it was necessary to use chemical weapons against his own citizens at that very moment. Again, I entirely applaud the Government’s handling of that. It was absolutely right that Britain joined the US and France in the military response. It was an error in 2013 that the other place voted against joining air strikes. They too were limited with a specific target, and fitted well into the strategy. That sent a signal of British disengagement around the world. What signal would it have sent if Britain had stood aside a second time from western action? Of course, that one-off military operation will not fundamentally change the Syrian civil war. I agree with others in the debate that it needs to form part of a wider strategy and that we need to get back to a political process. I am sure that the Minister can put the Government’s position more clearly than I can, but in my memory it has long been the position of the Government that the Syrian regime would have to be part of any such negotiation. The problem has been getting the Syrian parties together; that needs to be re-energised now.
The Russian reaction to the Syrian use of CW has been very odd. It is as if they thought we were blaming Russia for using CW and that we would attack Russian forces. They had some problem keeping a single coherent line; on the same day that the Russian defence ministry in Moscow was saying, “It was the British wot did it”, the Russian representative in New York was saying that there had not been any chemical attack at all. We had a great deal of scaremongering that any western military action could be the prelude to World War III, and that things were now worse than the Cold War. Worse than the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviet invasion of Hungary, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? I do not think so, although some of our media picked up the Russian propaganda and worried people a great deal.
It is essential for a Prime Minister to have discretion to authorise military action in an emergency, and to be accountable to Parliament afterwards for the exercise of that discretion. I am clear that any British Government with any sense of survival will take care to consult Parliament and have parliamentary backing before launching any significant large-scale military activity putting British lives at risk—certainly any ground-force military operation—but a limited, contained military strike of the kind that we saw at the weekend, co-ordinated with allies and therefore with decisions required urgently, seems within the discretion that a Prime Minister should have. It should be an issue for political discretion and accountability, not for definition in legislation.
In addition to the immediate and the urgent there are some very long-term issues, as other noble Lords have indicated. Since before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the twin pillars of our grand strategy have been to be the closest of allies with Washington, and to be anchored in Europe despite a degree of turbulence there. Bits of masonry are falling off each pillar. Leaving the European Union clearly changes one element of that strategy, and the inevitable US move in the focus of its national security towards Asia alters the relationship with Washington. That is no surprise, as the defining national security issue of the next 50 years will be US competition with China; the surprise has been President Trump’s retreat from multilateralism and the hesitations about endorsing NATO Article 5, which produced the other interesting comment of the last year, which was Chancellor Merkel at the G7 saying, “We Europeans truly have to take our fate in our own hands”. For a Federal German Chancellor to show that degree of concern about NATO is worrying.
I profoundly hope that a review of Britain’s role in the world will conclude that we should remain an activist, engaged international power, living up to our responsibilities as a permanent member. However, that argument has to be remade and re-won with the British people after all the problems that we have had with Iraq and Afghanistan, as others have said. That argument needs to begin now. It is one of the most important tasks for our National Security Council, alongside all the immediate and urgent matters that it has to deal with.
Lord West of Spithead
In the context of the noble Lord’s work as National Security Adviser, what level of discussion was there about the scale of defence forces required for our nation?
Lord Ricketts
I had the privilege of being the National Security Adviser at the time of what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to as the worst security and defence review of all time, in 2010. It ran alongside a comprehensive spending review. It is an inevitable law of government that strategic decisions have to be taken in light of the resources available, otherwise you make a strategy and totally fail to fund it, which does not help you either. I would defend that 2010 review. As noble Lords will remember, it inherited a large gap in the programme for the Ministry of Defence, and tried to bring the programme and the defence budget back together. One of the legacies of that most awful defence review ever will be our two aircraft carriers and the F35s on them, which will restore a degree of clout to British defence policy.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, after such an excellent, measured and learned speech. Two issues are circling in this debate and are best considered individually. The first concerns Parliament’s role in military action, in this case in Syria, and our use of military force as a response to the use of prohibited chemical weapons. The second concerns the merits of that action in particular. Obfuscation of the first cannot be allowed to act as a convenient smokescreen to avoid the second.
On the first—the role of Parliament in military action—let us be clear: nobody is saying that Members of either House should not hold the Government to account in decisions that put our Armed Forces in harm’s way. Nobody is saying that we should not have a debate, and nobody is supressing those who hold dissenting views and oppose military action. The only question of significance is whether the Government need prior approval for military action from Parliament, via a vote. The royal prerogative allows that it does not, and there is good reason for that constitutional doctrine. In matters of war, the Executive and the legislature are separate. There are no grey areas to be exploited; there is no handy definition available of what constitutes urgent and non-urgent action. It is a judgment left to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to act or not, and to account for their actions to Parliament.
The Government necessarily have access to intelligence which Parliament might not have seen and that cannot be made public. It may well be on such evidence that such military decisions must be taken. The Government have therefore acted entirely properly. Parliament’s role is to debate and scrutinise decisions already made. Have we really learned nothing from 2013, when the House of Commons in effect shamefully vetoed the Prime Minister’s call to take military action in Syria? The result of that vote was that President Obama—and therefore the rest of the West—was deterred from intervening, creating a vacuum into which Putin moved as he purported to take responsibility for decommissioning those chemical weapons. That was the last moment when there was a chance that the non-extremist opposition could have defeated Assad. Russia’s intervention on Assad’s side to pummel the opposition forces arguably created the space which Daesh or ISIS swiftly occupied.
On the action, it is important that we ask only the right and relevant questions. Military action should never be the first choice and should be deployed only when necessary. However, it is not relevant, as the leader of the Opposition did on Sunday, to ask whether we should use our “abilities” to save lives, as if this were an either/or scenario and we had callously chosen war over peace. It is not relevant to question only the legality of the action. Of course there will be those who contest the legality, but the legal case of a military response to the use of prohibited chemical weapons is based on alleviating “overwhelming humanitarian suffering” and is well-founded. We might well prefer a UN Security Council resolution to back that up, but we know that this is not available, as Russia, Assad’s partner in tyranny, would veto it.
The responsibility to protect has become part of the West’s legal framework. It underpinned our successful and just intervention in Kosovo to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. In Syria, the US, the UK and France intervened together in a proportionate way to underscore the important point that the international norm prohibiting the use of chemical weapons must not be violated. Do not tell me that the signatories of the UN charter in the dark days of the 1940s would seriously have stood aside, as a dictator used abhorrent weapons against his own people.
It is not relevant to avoid making this difficult decision by claiming that a diplomatic solution is still on the table and is being wilfully ignored, when all but the most naive know that it is not. The leader of the Opposition says that he would like these weapons destroyed, as they were in 2013 and 2015. Does it not strike him as odd that, after each of these events, there are further instances of not only the retention of prohibited chemical weapons by Assad’s forces but their despicable and unconscionable deployment? The end of a genuine diplomatic solution would see Assad stand trial in The Hague for war crimes, but does anyone think that is on the table?
The use of chemical weapons against civilians in Douma which killed more than 40, many of them children, is an atrocity that should stand alone and not go unpunished. The UN has concluded that chemical weapons were used two weeks ago, and now Putin is preposterously claiming that the evidence is being faked. Children are gasping their last breaths so that he can scorch the earth across the Middle East to bolster his own political position. Hiding behind legal nit-picking, wishful thinking and process is not behaviour becoming the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, apparently because, in his view, anyone who opposes the West is deserving of support. It is no surprise that the contentions he advances can also be heard in Tehran and Moscow, not in free parliamentary debate but on state-controlled television. Yet Iranian and Russian motivations are as suspect as their means are wicked. Syria could potentially have been freed from Assad’s brutal regime five or six years ago, if Iran had not been propping him up.
I end by asking the question that matters: will this action deter the future use of chemical weapons? It was not done on the assumption that it will end the war, topple Assad and bring about regime change; it was meant as a direct response to a chemical weapons attack to deter any repeated uses. Will it work? We obviously cannot know for sure, but Assad and his Russian puppet masters must now grasp a new precedent: that every time they choose to deploy chemical weapons, they will suffer direct and significant military set-backs. While we cannot know for sure whether this will work, we can calculate that it is surely worth the risk.
We need to send a signal to the world that norms cannot be crossed with impunity. After Rwanda, we said we would intervene in genocide; after nuclear proliferation to North Korea, the world asked how this could be allowed to happen without someone stopping it. We were right to take action in Kosovo without the backing of the Security Council. In this instance, the Government were right to take action in conjunction with the US and France. If such action reduces the prospect of these despicable weapons being unleashed again on the innocent by even a fraction, then surely it is our duty to take it.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I want to focus my remarks this afternoon on the Syrian missile strike, which is but a small piece of the tragic and complex jigsaw that is Syria today, with civil war, ISIS, tribal conflict, major power intervention, brutality, bloodshed and destruction on a horrific scale. One thing is clear: Assad and his henchmen, sadly, with Russian and Iranian support have virtually won the conflict and are likely to remain in power. The time has surely come for our Government to change their message and drop the mantra that Assad cannot be part of Syria’s future, as so many other noble Lords have said this afternoon. He clearly will be, and it is absurd to pretend otherwise.
The military action that was taken, which I strongly support, substantially degraded Assad’s chemical warfare capability. It reinstated a red line—nothing more than that. I firmly believe that the participation of France and ourselves played a key role in supporting the Mattis Pentagon approach of a limited, focused strike, compared with the wider military action indicated and perhaps favoured by the Trump-Bolton axis in America.
There has been considerable debate about parliamentary authorisation for military action, but the call for prior approval, in my judgment, falls at virtually every hurdle of examination. Could our allies have been expected to wait? No. Could we disclose the precise nature of targets? No. Could we disclose the intelligence on which our decisions were based, which probably came from France, with its historical connections with Syria and deep involvement there, and from the United States and probably Israel and Saudi Arabia? No. Could we say that there would be only one strike? No, because if the first had not been completely successful, we would probably have needed a second strike. So what would have been left for the Government to say? It would have been just, “We intend to attack Syria, probably with the United States and France. Please give us a blank cheque to do so”. Recalling Parliament would likely have further extended the time gap between the terrible initial chemical assault and our military action.
What has also become clear, and I will make a semi-political point here, is that Jeremy Corbyn is a near pacifist and that he and colleagues such as Diane Abbott can hardly bring themselves to criticise Russia. This is despite its involvement in the downing of civilian aircraft, its aggression in Crimea and Ukraine, its military and logistical support for Assad, its repeated blocking of United Nations resolutions—I think we were told there were 12 in all by the Front Bench earlier—its poisoning in Salisbury, its delay and prevarication in letting the international inspection teams into the Douma site and, of course, its cyber activity. I have to say that Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit for prime ministerial office.
One of the few positives emanating from this situation has been the successful use of the hotline, thankfully keeping allied military action well away from Russian forces and their capability, and avoiding the slide into a potential third world war scenario. We praise the professionalism of our Armed Forces in what was almost a textbook operation. It is quite clear from the briefings we have had that meticulous care was taken to avoid civilian and collateral damage in the selection and choice of targets.
There have been repeated concerns in this House, in previous debates and today, about the size of our Armed Forces—their hollowing out, to use the words of the noble Baroness from the Opposition Front Bench. We have far too few naval vessels. I thought that we were going to hear a speech from the noble Lord, Lord West, that would not actually mention naval vessels, but then he brought them in at the tail-end. There has also been a near unanimous call for an increase in defence expenditure. At the very least, I suggest, the naval vessels that we have should have both defensive and offensive capabilities, where possible. The Type 45 destroyer which was in the Mediterranean at the time leading a NATO force—I believe it was HMS “Duncan”—was originally designed, as were other Daring-class destroyers, to carry cruise and Tomahawk missiles. This was not proceeded with on cost grounds. When the noble Earl, Lord Howe, replies to this debate, can he indicate whether cruise missiles could still be fitted to our Daring-class destroyers and what the cost would be? If we had that military capability, there would clearly be another option for our forces.
The short and medium-term future for the Middle East and Syria looks bleak. This is deeply worrying. At the start of the year, intelligence sources were predicting a serious Hezbollah-Iranian/Israeli conflict this year. Estimates of the number of missiles supplied by Iran directly and indirectly to Hezbollah range from 30,000 to 100,000. I have to say that I fear the worst. With President Trump quite clearly emboldened by the recent military success—“Mission Accomplished!”—his very strong and close support for Israel and his antipathy towards Iran, where could all this lead? In the longer term, there has to be some form of negotiated political solution in Syria and the wider Middle East, but it could be a very long time coming, with terrible humanitarian suffering in the meantime.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to participate in this most expert and well-informed debate. Our world presents innumerable threats. In parts of the globe, we face a powder keg of demagoguery, extreme ideology and regional rivalry, and added to this venomous mix are religious factionalism, ethnic confrontation and terrorism. Old and new technologies fan these flames: nuclear proliferates; Salisbury and Syria bear witness to a century-old ban on chemical weapons not holding; cyber enables malign, encrypted communication; there are powerful propaganda tools for evil; and there is intrusive and destructive new weaponry. There is no escape from this toxic brew. ISIS fighters return home to our streets, and conflict in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America promotes population shifts which in turn impact the equilibrium of settled nations far away, in turn promoting extremism, isolationism and protectionism. We are all connected.
We, our allies and international bodies all struggle to deal with this compound of forces. Russia’s use of its veto to defend the indefensible cruelly underlines the limitations of the UN. NATO countries represent overwhelming wealth, dwarfing other blocs, yet they appear collectively not to be able to invest effectively in comprehensive, integrated military capability, and NATO is further handicapped by its defined purpose from projecting western power beyond the theatre of its operations. Moreover, the internationalist consensus of our natural allies is undermined by emerging populism, making concerted action harder still.
How is the UK to navigate this messy, troubled world? There is no magic wand. History bequeaths the UK a world role which we have never forsaken. Moreover, we have high military and intelligence capability and, with others, we should be willing prudently and carefully to deploy it where clear global benefit can be obtained. We have learned the limitations of intervention in civil wars—I have never heard those limitations better expressed than they were expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord West—but we were entirely right this week, alongside our key allies, to draw a red line in Syria and to do so with dispatch.
I am uncomfortable with the stories of stretched and inadequate capabilities in our Armed Forces—best evidenced today by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—even with an investment of 2% of GDP, and I have instinctive sympathy with the cause, but I would like to hear a refined case made by the Armed Forces and their supporters which clearly differentiates between what capabilities we as a sovereign nation must have and what capabilities we need to participate in a concerted effort with our key allies. Is there not a case for intensifying the co-ordination of our joint defence capability with our closest allies, France and the US?
In international aid, the UK has a fine, progressive record. In driving global prosperity, we have long been proselytisers for free trade and for its beneficial impact, and we will remain so. We are keen supporters of international law and its institutions, and we must redouble our efforts to improve the effectiveness of these institutions, especially the UN. We must use our considerable diplomatic skill, our standing and our soft power to promote peace, stability and prosperity worldwide and to address other pressing global challenges, from malaria to climate change to plastic in our oceans.
Finally, on our own continent, we need above all to bring Russia in from the cold. It is one of the great civilisations. It brought us Eisenstein, Diaghilev, Tolstoy and Stravinsky. We have strong cultural bonds with that great country, but Russia’s political culture has been shaped by feudalism, communism and autocracy. In its own true interest, Russia’s future must lie not with adventuring, mischief and opportunism, let alone an extraordinary, incomprehensible use of an advanced military weapon in an English cathedral city. We were lucky to hear the erudite reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on the context behind that dreadful act. Rather, Russia’s political and economic future must surely lie with a mature and grown-up relationship with its European neighbours, and we must do all we can to foster that and to restore harmony on our doorstep. Here, I echo the sentiments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and of the Minister in his opening remarks.
We must, of course, secure our own home territory, but the better safeguard of our security will come from fighting ever harder, in line with our natural instincts as a nation, to foster internationalism wherever we can and to help to make a better world.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution in this important and timely debate. I acknowledge the brave men and women in our Armed Forces and police and the work they do in keeping us safe. The topic of this debate is wide-ranging, and I shall limit my speech to supporting the Prime Minister’s actions in the context of the national security situation in recent weeks.
The dictionary definition of terrorism is,
“the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims”.
What then was the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal if not terrorism? Russia has shown total disregard of and contempt for international law and human decency. It has for far too long violated the sovereignty and dignity of its neighbours, Georgia and Ukraine. I am encouraged by our Prime Minister’s leadership of international diplomatic efforts against Putin’s regime. We cannot allow Russia and other rogue states to think that they can bulldoze international law and order and target individuals in our country. I hope that because of the Prime Minister’s actions it will think very hard before attempting anything like that again. Russia must learn that it is unacceptable to attempt to murder people on the streets of our country or to assist with the murder of those in Syria.
Over the past month we have seen first-hand the horror of chemical warfare on our streets, but this pales in comparison to what is happening in Syria. Not only is the use of chemical weapons prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria has acceded, but it offends and violates our very deeply held beliefs. For this reason it is often referred to as a red line, but what is the purpose of a red line if it is not enforced? What are we achieving by making such profound declarations if we are not prepared to act to enforce them? We did that in 2013 and the cost of non-intervention has been punitively high: the refugee crisis, the destruction of Aleppo and the empowerment of Russia.
Many commentators and a number of noble Lords have spoken about the cost of intervention in Iraq. It is true that we should act with caution and learn the lessons of that war, but this is fundamentally different from Iraq: this is not about regime change. It is about telling President Assad that he cannot use chemical weapons to kill and terrorise his people into submission.
We should not forget how many lives in Bosnia, Rwanda and indeed Syria have been lost because of our unwillingness to intervene, and how many lives in Kosovo and Sierra Leone were saved because of British military intervention. I believe that by not intervening in 2013 we committed a sin of omission that has led to the deaths of thousands of people. Crucially, we also sent Assad a message that he could use one of the vilest forms of warfare to murder his own people without any threat of retaliation. Assad has gone on to use chemical weapons dozens of times. The Prime Minister has done exactly the right thing by telling the regime that it can no longer act with impunity.
Lord Glasman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Ministers for brokering this debate. It is always an honour to participate in a debate in this House. I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, that I think last week’s attacks were Chilcot-compliant, and that is a very important thing to bear in mind.
I mentioned on Monday that I had been to Syria. I came back 10 days ago. I was in the north-eastern part of Syria for five days as a guest of what they call the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, and in order to get there I had to go via Baghdad. I want to share some of my reflections and observations with the House because I think they are pertinent. On arrival in Baghdad, it is impossible to escape the fact that the Shia have won; the city is festooned with tower-high luminous green posters of Ali and Hussein and in miniature form they are on every soldier’s heart, including sayings about people being prepared to die for Hussein and Ali. I was driven by a driver through a very congested area at 140 kilometres an hour so it was not a really calm reflection, but there are now high concrete barricades keeping the Sunni Arab community in their areas. Baghdad is now 65% Sunni. I met Ministers and MPs from the ruling al-Dawa party, and they left me under no illusion that, having had more than 1,000 years of living under the Sunni Arab yoke, as they put it, this was now their time and they were not going to relinquish that easily.
I will share with the House a golden political rule that I was taught. In order to get to the world as it should be—and I think we can all agree what that is: reconciliation between divided communities, democracy and the rule of law—you have to begin with a sober analysis of the world as it is. So, however difficult it is to digest, in the world as it is in relation to Iraq, the Shia have won nationally, Iran has won regionally and Russia has won globally. We have to begin our analysis from that realistic point. When I was preparing this speech, I went through the Hansard of the debates on the Iraq war in 2002-03 but I could not find any analysis that presented that outcome, so I suggest that we proceed with some humility in this reflection.
A kind of mirage or delusion governed our foreign policy: that there would be some form of moderate Sunni Arab force that we could ally with, but that did not exist in Iraq and it certainly does not in Syria. According to what I saw in Syria, we seem to be in alliance with the Free Syrian Army, whose troops are overwhelmingly constituted by al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and defeated ISIS forces. Russia and Assad—again, we are talking about the presence of Russia—have fought against ISIS, and it seems that they are ultimately going to win that conflict.
Any national security strategy requires an analysis of the primary enemy. It is important to look at the latest research on how ISIS—Daesh, as it is known over there—ruled. It was based on the systematic rape and subjugation of women. I spoke to women in Syria and Iraq who were sold in cages in public markets. That was the mode of life. Equally important, the property of the Shia, Christians, Yazidis and Kurds was immediately confiscated and then sold legally, through a ministry, to the Sunni Arabs—this in a land where those people had been living together for more than a millennium.
The tragedy for us is that a third force did and does exist in Syria that is not Assad on the one hand or Daesh on the other. It is not too strong to say that we have betrayed that force. I am talking about the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces, which hosted me. They are made up of Kurds, Yazidis, Christians—I met the Syrian Christian communities that were participating—and Sunni Arabs. They went to the city of Kabani, where Daesh/ISIS was first resisted and beaten. When I met their families, I honoured the very young soldiers who had died there. I met the YPJ, the women’s forces, whom our troops fought alongside all the way, ultimately, from Kabani to Raqqa; we had a very close military relationship with them. They fought fearlessly and heroically.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who opened the debate, mentioned that there is a British initiative to encourage the participation of women and girls in the reconstruction of Syria. We have a huge amount to learn from them. I saw a very deeply embedded democratic system. I have coined an unusual phrase to try to describe it: try to imagine a “parish commune” system. It is a very local form of democracy, involving the participation of all the different communities in local assemblies, with only one rule: there has to be a minimum of 40% female participation for that to hold.
So we had allies we fought alongside who were upholding democracy and the participation of women, and who were winning, but we did not stand by them. A very important part of this debate about national security is a reflection on Turkey. I am very reluctant to dissent in any way from the noble Lord, Lord Owen, but in this regard we have to take very seriously the idea that the Turkish state is not a reliable ally at the moment. Not only has it arrested and imprisoned a record number of journalists and sacked more than 100,000 public sector workers, under this very curious combination of Ataturk and the Muslim Brotherhood—a certain Islamist nationalism—but it has invaded its friend Syria. It has conducted 58 consecutive days of bombing using 78 aircraft, so a NATO partner has invaded Syria. The relentless bombing has led to the displacement of the population, so we can talk without any exaggeration of a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing. It has also paid al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and their Daesh forces to do the actual local fighting on the ground to displace the local population.
So the first question to the noble Earl is: whose side are we on in this? Why are we not being much more resolute in supporting our allies, whom we have fought alongside consistently over the past two years? Why have we stood back? Secondly, we have forces in Manbij, and there are American forces there. There is every indication that Turkey will extend its annexation and invasion to the east. What commitment can he give that the British forces will stay there, because I imagine that Turkey would be reluctant to bomb a fellow NATO partner? That is very important. To what extent are we trying to rebuild and renew our relationship with the PYD and the YPG, which we have fought alongside, and what humanitarian assistance are we giving to the 100,000 refugees who have been displaced from the home they have lived in for 4,000 years?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, who speaks with real authority and from recent experience on the Kurds in northern Syria. It is also a privilege to take part in a debate in which two senior national security experts—the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones—have taken part, and one in which a distinguished former Foreign Secretary has taken part, together with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, who presumably has now inherited from Lord Healey the status of the best Foreign Secretary we never had.
I can speak with no particular authority about Syria—I am an amateur—but I am tempted by what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said to go a little further than I did in our discussion on Monday’s Statement, when I could speak only about Syria. My theme is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. It is about realism and how I think we need to be a bit more realistic, so I will end up exactly where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, did at the end of his speech.
I am not clear what our strategy on Syria is now. The one thing that is clear is that it is failing. We are against the Assad regime. We are also against ISIS, which is being beaten by the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian supporters. We say that we support the Kurds, who were the most effective indigenous anti-ISIS force, but we are doing nothing to stop them being killed by the Turks, who are our NATO allies. Iranian influence, huge in Baghdad now, as the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, said, is growing fast in Syria. The risk of an Iranian/Israeli conflict grows every day, as this week’s Israeli air strikes show, and the proxy Saudi/Iranian war in Yemen continues with very heavy civilian casualties.
What is the UK trying to achieve? Saturday’s strikes were brilliantly executed, I certainly do not agree that Parliament should have been consulted in advance and I have no doubt about the legality of the action. But the Prime Minister went out of her way in her Statement to make clear that they were not about regime change, yet, as far as I know, our policy is to call for regime change in Syria. It has been our policy for a number of years; there have been no signs of it succeeding, but we still parrot the cry, “Assad must go”.
Under Foreign Secretary Hague, we recognised a Syrian Government in exile. Where is that Government now? Under Foreign Secretary Hague, we told the rebel Syrian national army that we would assist them. Where was that assistance and where is that army now?
Breaching our normal practice, we derecognised the regime in Damascus and withdrew our embassy. Assad is still there; we still are not. I see no sign that we have any influence on the Syrian Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, we need to recognise that Assad has won. Of course his is a loathsome regime; I am absolutely not an apologist for the man and I understand the rationale for Saturday’s strikes. The Chemical Weapons Convention is important and worth protecting, yet I am uneasy about the strikes.
What was it about this breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Assad regime, unlike previous ones—the Minister spoke of four; Human Rights Watch talks of 50—that triggered a punitive response? I hope it was not just the presence of a television camera. By attacking only chemical weapons sites and stores—no military camps, no containments, no headquarters and no military hardware such as tanks, rockets or artillery—do we risk creating the perception that the regime may kill with impunity provided it does not use chemical weapons?
What were the political and military effects of the strike? I doubt if it won hearts and minds in Syria. Militarily, I was thinking over the weekend about Henry Fox in 1757 attacking the raid on Rochefort under Pitt as breaking windows with guineas. I am uneasy about hit-and-run raids. The middle ground between engagement and disengagement is murky territory. In Iraq, engagement and regime change clearly failed, 500,000 died and the Iranians now call the shots in Baghdad. But in Syria, disengagement, no boots on the ground, proxy forces and bombing has worked no better, with another 500,000 dead in country or on the long, tragic refugee route to an unwelcoming Europe.
I do not know what the answer is. I am not an expert on the region, I cannot answer my own questions, but I have been asking for a couple of years for answers from the Government and I have five particular questions to put today. First, I think we must drop the pretence that present policy on Syria may still succeed. William Pitt’s triumph in 1759 came when he dropped the policy and completely overturned the strategy that he had been following at the time of the Rochefort raid. We must accept that Putin, Rouhani and Erdoğan are in charge, Assad will stay there as long as they prop him up and, if he goes, it is they who will pick his successor. Do the Government agree?
Secondly, that means we have to talk seriously to all three of them. I do not believe any of them wants the disintegration of Syria and, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, I am not sure that Russian and Western interests are always a zero-sum game. The Russians will of course want to retain the influence they have secured and their bases at Tartus and Latakia, but I do not think they want to be sucked into the sort of quagmire that the Americans are in in Afghanistan. I can envisage Russia brokering a compromise between Iran and Israel, with Iran’s Shiite allies being allowed to remain in Syria provided they keep their distance from Israel. That may be wrong, but I should like to know what the Government think. Do they feel that we should be in dialogue with the Russians about Syria?
Thirdly, what about a peace process? We should be realistic about the Geneva process, which plainly does not work, and consider some association with the Sochi process, which might work. Do the Government agree?
Fourthly, since American policy in Syria is likely to remain capricious, since Syria is Europe’s neighbour, not America’s, and since we and the French have historic responsibilities there, I hope that the Government are seeking a common Anglo-French analysis and prescription and will then seek to sell it to wider Europe. A Europe traumatised by the refugee crisis might respond to an Anglo-French lead.
Finally, I hope that the Government will quickly revisit the decision to withdraw the embassy from Damascus. Diplomatic contacts with friends are useful; with foes, they are vital.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Ahmad and Lord Howe for arranging this important debate. The attempted assassination of the Skripals was an unjust act, an act against international law and an outrage to this country. The invasion of Ukraine and subsequent annexation of the Crimea was also an unjust act against international law and an outrage against the international community. Russia is a state which has ceased to obey international law. It is rogue, it is criminal and it is dangerous. It strikes at our institutions as well as our citizens. I do not know whether it managed to spread misinformation during any recent elections here, but I do know that its channels, Sputnik and Russia Today, are pure propaganda. No Member of this or the other place should feel comfortable appearing on them. That the former First Minister of Scotland feels entitled to work for a Kremlin-funded channel is nothing short of a disgrace.
I feel great relief that the international community rallied around the UK in our time of great need following the Salisbury attack. Even in New Zealand, where there were no spies to expel, we benefited from international solidarity. Some had assumed that Brexit would blunt our ability to marshal support from our European allies, but we found good will when we were under severe pressure. Russia threatens not only the UK but a great many other of our European allies, especially in the Balkans. The most effective deterrent is of course hard military power. That is why I am strongly in favour of a greater British military presence in the Balkans and eastern Europe. Russia must not get the impression that NATO solidarity will be undermined. The Balkans have made a conscious choice to buy into the western organisations that they can, and they deserve our support.
On military action, I will be glad to join other noble Lords who support the Prime Minister’s decision to launch carefully targeted strikes on strategic targets in Syria. It is a clear breach of international and humanitarian law to use chemical weapons on one’s citizens and there needed to be a message that this conduct was unacceptable. I do not support full-scale military engagement, but I think this served as a grim warning to President Assad and his Kremlin backers. As for Russia, I support the ramping up of targeted sanctions on individuals and firms shown to be complicit in Russia’s grotesque foreign policy. However, as I have noted before in this House, Brexit has put the ability of the EU to apply targeted sanctions into some doubt. There are civil servants, currently split between the Foreign Office, Treasury and Department for International Trade, who conduct sanctions policy on our behalf and for the EU. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we will continue to assist the EU on sanctions policy during the period of the transition agreement and after our withdrawal?
A strong network of intelligence also helps to keep us safe. Often, intelligence can be more strategic than better weaponry, and we ought to be armed with both. Intelligence sharing is vital to that. In Europol, we benefit from a large pool of intelligence and secure channels, enabling us to share ours with relevant actors. This is an EU institution, and we do not yet know what our future relationship with it will be, despite it being crucial to our future. Can the Minister update us on what steps are being taken to ensure that the UK is as able to share and receive intelligence after Brexit?
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this debate. Some of what I intended to say survives the crime of repetition, but I will dine selectively from my thoughts. I want to make two contributions to this debate: one operational and one perhaps more reflective and strategic in nature.
The operational point relates to the allied air action over Syria last weekend and the surrounding debate about the need for prior parliamentary approval. This has been well covered today. I want to emphasise the extreme complexity of co-ordinating an allied response against what are inevitably time-sensitive targets, through hostile air space, when the retention of speed, security and surprise are prerequisites to both mission success and personnel security. In circumstances where the Government are confident of the moral, legal and intelligence case for action, my firm belief—and I think that this is now widely shared—is that they should retain the ability to act without parliamentary consent, thereby enhancing the chances of a safe and successful mission. They can answer to Parliament subsequently.
However, I would be the first to counsel that, when different factors prevail—when Armed Forces might be committed at scale, when operations are likely to be enduring and at cost, both in lives and national treasure, and when strategic surprise is not an issue—the Armed Forces are far happier when they know that they have the support of Parliament and wider society. I fear that, in the company of many friends, I have spent too much of my recent life fighting unpopular wars. The Armed Forces want to enjoy the support, not the sympathy, of their nation.
My second contribution is more reflective and concerns the wider character of the global security situation that we currently live in. My reflections are not just those of an ex-Chief of the Defence Staff; I also stake my claim as the 160th Constable of the Tower of London—a place which has borne witness to nigh on 1,000 years of our national story and the conflict that sadly litters it.
My first reflection is that the sources of conflict over time bear remarkable similarities of origin. The three most obvious are the violent pursuit and abuse of political power; the continued maldistribution of wealth and opportunity, both within societies and between countries; and the frequent and often brutal misrepresentation of the morality of great religion. My second reflection would be to lay bare the false notion of the teleological certainty of human betterment, of greater mutual harmony, of enduring and peaceful co-existence and of universal submission to a single set of rules by which the peoples of the world should live. My third reflection is on the remarkably intoxicating power of history’s legacy, a legacy we are connected to both rationally and emotionally, and a legacy which is key to understanding the actions and ambitions of both nations and their leaders.
What conclusions do I draw from these reflections? First, inevitable change, often accompanied by violence, is a far better description of mankind’s likely future than some idealised and predetermined journey to a state of universal human harmony. Secondly, I think that many countries do not buy into the current rules-based order; indeed, they feel very emotionally that it denies them their sense of historic entitlement. I would certainly include both Russia and Iran in that. Thirdly, the grand strategic challenge of this age is how we accommodate the change which is inevitable while maintaining the stability on which the continued betterment of the human condition absolutely depends.
Finally, having established that peaceful coexistence and a rules-based order are not naturally occurring, we may conclude that they need to be imposed, primarily consensually through alliances of interested parties and occasionally through the willingness of those parties to threaten or use force, but always in the context of thoughtful leadership, wise policy and strong capability. As a nation, we need to decide how prominent a role we wish to play in all this, and in making that decision we need to be mindful of, but not seduced by, the intoxicating power of our own historic legacy. If this last point is a touch esoteric, let me make it more specific and clear.
As a nation, we dangerously congratulate ourselves on spending 2% of GDP on our nation’s defence. But, at the same time, we cling to the retention of the totemic military capability of a great power: a gold-standard nuclear deterrent and the two largest carriers we have ever built, soon to be populated by the latest fifth-generation stealth aircraft. Of course I want these things, but I fear that the balance of our military capability has become the financial regulator which makes such programmes affordable. In being such, that conventional force is both reduced and hollowed out. In the context of the current global security situation, as a nation we need to do much better than that.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmad for introducing this debate today. It goes without saying that I fully support the recent military action, and we should be proud of and grateful for our Armed Forces’ efforts.
There has been much talk about war powers. Even before 2010, I always thought that having a vote in the Commons was foolish in the extreme. Of course debate, where possible, is essential. There are international conventions and treaties such as the Geneva Convention. Then there are our own parliamentary and constitutional conventions such as the Salisbury/Addison convention and the more recent but well-established Carter convention. They have all stood the test of time and seem to work in a variety of circumstances. Unfortunately, this new so-called convention has provided the wrong answer every time it has been used.
In 2003 the House of Commons authorised the illegal and unnecessary Operation Telic to invade Iraq, which was based on flawed intelligence not tested by proper debate in Cabinet, and, so far as I can determine, not tested by very senior Privy Council members of my own party either. I remind the House of my interest: I served on that operation. The noble Lord, Lord West, reminded us of how poor the strategy and how disastrous the history of that operation was. Interestingly, in your Lordships’ House we asked, “But what about the post-conflict plan?” Your Lordships were entirely confident that we would have the necessary military superiority over our opponents, and we got the normal platitudes, but, as the noble Lord, Lord West, told us, there was no proper post-conflict plan.
One of the unfortunate effects of the 2003 experience is that it has made the public and parliamentarians less willing to trust the Prime Minister and Government of the day on matters of national security—a point made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. Therefore it was not surprising that in 2013 the House of Commons made another duff decision by declining to authorise military action in Syria, with all the adverse effects that we know about, touched on by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts.
The 2003 vote was both pointless and damaging to morale in theatre. I know because I was there at the time. In the division alone we had 25,000 people on the ground who were vulnerable to a legal pre-emptive attack, provided it did not involve prohibited weapons. This is because Iraq had no WMD and we had no UN mandate. Fortunately, the Iraqi armed forces also had no suitable capability to make a first strike. The point is that the then Government had already taken military risks and exposed our forces to attack by authorising the deployment long before any vote took place in the House of Commons.
On morale, in 2003 the vast majority of the deployed force had never been in an operation where they were to make a deliberate large-scale attack on the enemy. Those young men and women needed to know that Parliament and the British people were right behind them. Of course, in a democracy there will be some contrary views, and servicepeople know that perfectly well. Nevertheless, it was deeply disturbing to many on that operation that the Commons was voting on the matter just hours before they were due to cross the start line with the possibility that they might never come back home. The other difficulty about any such vote in the Commons is that MPs are whipped on party lines. I think all noble Lords will agree that authorising or acquiescing to military action is strictly a matter for the House of Commons, although we can express a view.
Many noble Lords opposite who are so keen on a war powers Act were also kind and courageous enough to support me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in our amendments to the Data Protection Bill. I am now trying to convince just a few Conservative MPs to support us or at least to abstain on the Lords amendments. I am claiming to my colleagues that this is a matter of the first order of importance. However, thanks to the efforts of the Whips in the other place, I have managed to discuss the matter with only two MPs. The usual reply is that it is not something they know anything about and, by implication, they will vote with the Government and are not interested in what I have to say, or they even try to persuade me that I am wrong, which is always a possibility. But only a certain proportion of the membership of the Commons has a knowledge of defence, security and international relations, and even if most Members were at the level of many noble Lords who have spoken today, they still would not have the benefit of the JIC reports or a relationship and deep discussions with CDS—a point well made in general terms by my noble friend Lady Finn.
Another problem with the so-called convention is that it does not include Special Forces operations, for obvious reasons. Quite properly, it is very likely that political authority for most SF operations will be vested in no more than one of three very senior Ministers. If one of these operations went badly wrong, however, the strategic repercussions could be very serious indeed.
I believe that the old system was the correct one. The leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and perhaps two other shadow Secretaries of State should take a briefing on Privy Council terms. If Her Majesty’s Opposition absolutely needs to, a vote of confidence in the Government can be called, either before or after the event, although that of course would run the risk of a general election. If the Government lost the vote of confidence, the operation would surely stop immediately. Therefore, the Commons always has the ability to stop an operation if it wants to, but it has that capability without the serious disadvantages attendant on a prior vote.
Much has been said about China. The reality is that, given the size of its economy, the number of well-educated people and its productive capability, it is catching up with the United States and will overtake it, just as the United States did to us. The reasons are exactly the same. The educated population in the United States overtook ours, and the same thing is happening in China: its educated and productive population is overtaking that of the United States. There is little we can do about that. We just have to manage it.
Our priority is Russia. The United States’ priority is dealing with China, and we understand that. However, we can help the United States by being able to deploy with a comprehensive capability. By that, I mean that we can offer a carrier battle group and an amphibious task group, and we ought to be able to deploy at divisional or large-scale level anywhere across the world, except for the Arctic. Partially in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, we need to be able to run a medium-scale operation anywhere with our own carrier battle group capability. If we can do that, we will always be important to the Americans and will maintain that close relationship.
The consensus seems to be that we need to increase our defence expenditure to at least 2.5% and possibly 3%. I remember being somewhat surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Soley, suggested 3% in a relatively recent debate, but I now think he is probably right. However, there is a problem with increasing defence expenditure rapidly. It is not easy to do so without wasting the money. If we increase our capabilities, we need to ensure that those capabilities are balanced, and we are quite good at making sure that that is the case.
We also need to demonstrate that the capability that we already have works. That is why it is essential that exercise Saif Sareea is at least of medium scale—that is, that we deploy at least a brigade. We also need to show as soon as we can that we can deploy at large scale—in other words, a whole division—on an exercise overseas. It is a very long time since we have exercised a fully bombed-up division in the field. If I am not convinced that we can do it properly, I doubt that a peer opponent believes that we can do it, and that is very serious. The Minister may tell the House, as he has told me before, that we can test our capability with computer simulation, but that does not demonstrate to the outside world that we can do it; nor does it fully cover any weaknesses that one might discover in the logistics. I am particularly concerned that we have hollowed out our logistics, and I wonder whether that was what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, was referring to. The cost of a large-scale deployment exercise is much lower than the cost of drastically increasing one’s capability.
On Assad, I do not want to be unhelpful to my noble friend the Minister, but has he any evidence to suggest that Assad will not win?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I speak from a Sikh perspective and I offer my apologies if what I say is out of sync with today’s 19th and 20th-century power-bloc politics.
Sikh teachings on the prevention of conflict almost parallel the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formulated after the horror of the Second World War, and they stress the dignity and equality of all members of our one human family. They also legitimise the use of military force only as a last recourse when all other means have failed. I believe that we and other great powers have pushed the declaration—the key to true peace and security—to one side in our pursuit of supposed “national interest”, using smaller countries as pawns in power-bloc politics. The conflict in Syria is a case study of the futility and cruel effect of such policies on innocent lives.
Following his election, US President Donald Trump made clear his desire to withdraw from international conflicts. Anxious to preserve our special relationship with the USA, our Prime Minister dutifully echoed him, saying that we will have to stop being the world’s policeman. A few weeks back, President Trump made clear his desire to extricate the US from the conflict in Syria and was expected to do so with an impressive military flourish.
We are then expected to believe that President Assad, having secured control of much of the country, suddenly decides to launch a chemical attack on a children’s hospital. It could be true, although it sounds implausible, but it gave the US President an opportunity to withdraw from the conflict flourishing his military might. France and Britain dutifully backed him in a combined military strike against Assad. President Trump predictably tweeted “Mission accomplished”. It is sad that our PM should feel duty-bound to back military action prior to any investigation. I thought that it was only in Alice in Wonderland that we had the saying, “Sentence first—verdict afterwards”.
I find the propaganda in government statements and in the media to justify the military action morally questionable and sometimes hypocritical. We have grown used to the convention of calling countries we do not like “regimes”. Now, to justify action and our intervention, President Assad is widely referred to as a monster. Our PM rightly says that the conflict in Syria can be ended only through negotiations, but it does not help negotiations to call someone a monster. I agree that Assad is no angel and is, like many leaders we have propped up in the Middle East, a brutal dictator. But we should always also remember that his troubles began when, on “humanitarian grounds”, he let in nearly a million Sunni Muslims from the earlier conflict in Iraq. Now, we are being told that the strike against him was on humanitarian grounds.
Are we really saying that it is morally okay to kill and maim the people of Syria with bullets, bombs and missiles, but somehow morally wrong to do so with chemical weapons? I think that our Prime Minister was more honest—but wrong—when, as justification, she said that the action was “in Britain’s national interest”. The conflict in Syria is also in Iran’s national strategic interest and that of the USA, Russia, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other global players, including ISIS, anxious to have a so-called strategic presence in the Middle East regardless of the horrendous consequences suffered by innocents. In the quagmire of the Middle East, and in trying to punish Assad, we have also helped ISIS in its beheadings and amputations, not only of the people of Syria but of innocent aid workers.
I am saddened by the hypocrisy of our Government and the Governments of the USA and France. While wringing their hands about the monster Assad’s supposed chemical weapon attack on little children, they have all in the last two or three weeks signed billion-dollar deals with Saudi Arabia to export arms for use in Yemen, so that Saudi Arabia can strut its military might in the Middle East with the continued bombing of men, women and little children in Yemen. Such displays of machismo were the norm in the 19th and 20th centuries, leading to two world wars and countless other conflicts in the pursuit of national or strategic interest and to the continuing death and suffering of millions. An important aspect of strategic action is trade: it is important, but trade should never trump human rights. I was appalled when a Minister openly said that when we talk trade with China we should not raise issues of human rights. The same sentiments have been raised by government officials in the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia to destroy lives in Yemen.
It is not only the West that has lost its moral direction. The same immoral policies are being pursued by Russia, China and others: 80% of the weaponry flooding the world today and fuelling countless conflicts is supplied by members of the so-called Security Council. The whole concept of supposed strategic interest has, over the centuries, been shown to be deeply flawed and a recipe for continuing conflict. A Christian hymn reminds us:
“They enslave their children’s children who make compromise with sin”.
It is a truth echoed in Sikh teachings and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The only strategic interest worth pursuing is respect for human rights and social justice for all and for future generations in our highly interdependent world.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this has been yet another impressive debate that demonstrates the huge and diverse expertise among your Lordships. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his masterly review of the challenges that the UK faces and his assessment of our strengths and weaknesses. I appreciate that he set aside his engagement with our Commonwealth colleagues so that he could open the debate. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem pointed out, the potential scope of this debate could not be wider. We have ranged across our Armed Forces, our intelligence forces, our ability to counter cyber intrusion, Syria, China, North Korea, Iran, Ukraine, the Crimea, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism and much else besides.
I want to step back and look at the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, a report with which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, is no doubt familiar. The report said to “expect the unexpected”, but what a different country 2015 seems to be, pre-referendum and pre-Trump. A theme running strongly through the report is that:
“Economic security goes hand-in-hand with national security”.
It is worth going through the report given that here we are, knowingly heading towards a less economically advantageous position as we apparently seek to leave our largest trading partner. Anyone who has read the assessments in that DExEU room will see that there is no scenario where our economy would be as strong as if we stayed in the EU.
The risks go beyond that as well. My noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Wallace have flagged the risks of pulling back from the EU over defence and security. Then there is our Diplomatic Service. In that 2015 document, then Prime Minister Cameron said that,
“we will use our outstanding Diplomatic Service to promote our interests and project our influence overseas”.
We do indeed do that, and I pay tribute to those in that service and to their outstanding quality. However, we now see that we are reducing our Diplomatic Service in some parts of the world because we have to strengthen our service in Europe.
Mr Cameron also said:
“Britain’s safety and security depends not just on our own efforts, but on working hand in glove with our allies to deal with the common threats that face us all”.
He went on to say:
“When confronted by danger, we are stronger together. So we will play our full part in the alliances which underpin our security and amplify our national power”.
He then elaborated:
“We will work with our allies in Europe”.
We have now apparently set ourselves in another direction. Even if the noble Earl the Minister assures us that we will indeed work closely with our European allies—and I am sure he will—we know that this cannot be as closely as we can do now.
The report speaks of the strengths of each part of the United Kingdom, yet now we threaten Northern Ireland’s peace and prosperity. It also notes that:
“The UK is a global leader in science, technology, medicine, energy, and the creative industries. We are home to 18 of the world’s top 100 universities”—
all challenged, of course, by Brexit. Blithely unaware, it seems, of what was coming down the track, the 2015 report states:
“We will use our long-term relationships to develop and maintain the alliances and partnerships that we rely on every day for our security and prosperity”.
It goes on to state:
“Our special relationship with the US remains essential to our national security. It is founded on shared values, and our exceptionally close defence, diplomatic, security and intelligence cooperation”.
Clearly, we were not able to predict Trump. But this is where our belonging to the EU should help to bolster that alliance in such circumstances. I note, like my noble friend Lord Wallace, that Merkel and Macron will visit the US together next week, and we are not included. The report continues:
“We are extending and expanding our defence and security relationships with our European partners, notably France … and Germany. We have close relationships with all EU member states”.
So thought the Government in 2015.
Then there is the reference to the International Court of Justice. Unsupported by our erstwhile EU partners, we lost the UK judge on the ICJ for the first time in its existence. The 2015 report notes the scale of our trade with the EU, and that the US and Europe remain the largest investors in the UK. Moreover, it states:
“Through the EU, we have free trade agreements covering more than 50 of our trading partners, which remove barriers to business and open up markets”.
It sounds like a sensible national strategy to support such an approach, one would have thought.
The 2015 report concluded by considering a series of tier 1 risks, including cybersecurity, chemical and biological attacks and proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons—issues that we have considered today. One of those tier 1 risks was identified as,
“undermining of our military and economic alliances and institutions”.
The fundamental assumptions of that 2015 national security review are notable for the emphasis on the importance of the economic strength of the UK and on its fundamental alliances with a stable, globally facing United States and with our European neighbours and allies. It was, however, spot-on that we needed to “expect the unexpected”—a phrase that my father often used to use when he taught me to drive. We face such global challenges, where working together is vital. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned, a key area is climate change, where working with our European allies helped to secure the Paris climate change treaty. Then there is the rise of China, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Jones and Lady Helic, so powerfully referred.
Then I come to Syria, which was indeed the reason why this debate was scheduled. My noble friend Lord Campbell laid out what he identified as the legal case for making the targeted attack as a result of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, and almost all noble Lords have addressed the situation in Syria. I picked up no disagreement in regard to the recent intervention over chemical weapons, although there were some challenges over whether Parliament should have been consulted before, or whether being held to account afterwards was more appropriate.
Here I am going to reiterate the interesting phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord West, about a certain “nasty bastard”, as then Hansard cannot clean up his language. I discovered that a number of years ago when a noble Lord used a much ruder phrase and my query as to how Hansard would render that meant that Hansard had to record it exactly as it was expressed. My kids then challenged me to get included in Hansard similar rude words, which I have failed thus far to do. But on Syria, rightly, noble Lords have emphasised how important it is to identify the dangers of the conflict there—the huge and potentially catastrophic risks of an Israeli/Iranian conflict, of the TurkishKurdish clashes to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, and the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Russia and others.
Right now, the best prospect for a resolution seems to be in the Russian-supported talks, where a constitutional convention is being discussed. We need to look long term at accountability and justice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, rightly emphasised. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others, are right that we must engage with Russia, whether we regard it, as he does, as a gangster state, or as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, as now engaged in a second Cold War. The Russians or Putin easily portray themselves as walled-up and under attack from the West. That may help to shore up Putin, but it does not help to solve these international problems.
This has indeed been a wide-ranging debate and I know that we will have a suitably wide-ranging and very thoughtful response from the noble Earl the Minister. Noble Lords have conveyed with great insight the seriousness of the range of challenges facing the world and, therefore, us in the UK. What strikes me is how the assessments of 2015, only three years ago, rightly identified areas that we must address for our security, and that a fundamental assumption was that we would be promoting Britain’s prosperity and security through the European Union. Comparing the 2015 national security strategy with the one just issued shows how vital it is that we urgently address every aspect of the potential loss of our position within the EU, as we seek to defend ourselves and play our part in addressing the huge range of challenges that we face in the world today.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for introducing this debate. It has been incredibly wide-ranging across a huge number of difficult subjects. I add my own appreciation to the noble Lord for his actions on the humanitarian side of the Government’s policy and for his actions this week in terms of CHOGM in promoting those issues and ensuring that we get movement from the heads of Government.
In seven years of bloodshed, as we have heard, the war in Syria has claimed half a million lives and, we should not forget, also driven 11 million people from their homes, causing a humanitarian tragedy on a scale unknown anywhere else in the world. That tragedy has repercussions in terms of refugees across not only the Middle East but Europe too. It has huge consequences.
As my noble friend Lady Smith said in her opening remarks, it is impossible to consider our response to recent events without examining our own national security and our international role in a long-term strategy for peace in regions of conflict. As she argued, there can be no justification for the use of chemical weapons, yet the Syrian President’s use of chemical weapons against civilians is well documented, with the shameful attack on Douma being the latest and most serious, with hundreds of people affected and around 70 dead.
Whatever lessons are to be learnt from recent events, one thing that needs to be considered is the ability of the institutions that have the job of investigating and gathering evidence of such crimes. As was put so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, individuals who commit crimes against humanity should know that they cannot act with impunity and will be held to account. The use of chemical weapons is a serious global issue, and we should work internationally, through the United Nations, to ensure that such weapons cannot be manufactured or used in conflict.
Some people ask what the point of the UN process is when Russia can veto action. Let us be clear on what happened at the UN last week. Quite simply, Russia claimed that there had not been a chemical weapons attack in Douma, while the US, UK and others claimed not just that there had been an attack but that they had proof that Assad was responsible. Russia said that it would not agree to an investigation if other parties had already predetermined the outcome before waiting for definite proof that a chemical attack had taken place. That was the nature of the stand-off. In that situation, a series of steps could be worked through—step one being allowing the UN-mandated inspectors into Douma for the OPCW to verify that there was an attack and identify the chemical weapons used. That process is happening now. Then, the OPCW needs to go back to the UN with its report and evidence.
I say this because that exact process was followed in 2013 after the chemical attacks on Ghouta. There was a UN inspection, which reported back. That led to a Russia-US agreement to destroy hundreds of tonnes of Assad’s chemical weapons and agents. Clearly, that agreement did not go far enough, but it shows that progress on these issues on the basis of the independent reports of UN-mandated inspectors is possible. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons can continue its inspections, report the evidence and allow the UN to consider its next steps?
When the Government made the case for military intervention in Syria three years ago, they did so purely on the basis of the need to stop Daesh establishing a safe haven in the country. We have received reports on the progress that has been made there—progress that has certainly not come without a cost. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has said in previous debates, the humanitarian crisis and suffering of the Syrian people continues.
The recent action has been taken on humanitarian grounds without prior parliamentary debate. As my noble friend said, the Government have not yet indicated how they reached a judgment of not needing debate. The desire from these Benches is to have greater clarity from the Government on the principles of consulting, debating and voting in Parliament in advance of military action. That sort of democratic engagement is preferable to the advance warning of military action given in tweets by President Trump.
From my perspective and that of my noble friend, it is clear from today’s debate that any expression of concern about that issue does not represent a desire to hinder necessary intervention. A Labour Government would always intervene if our country was attacked— or to protect our civilians and allies overseas—without hesitation. If we had a situation again like Kosovo or Sierra Leone, where Labour Governments intervened in a limited way in emergency situations to prevent the impending massacre of civilians and support peacekeepers on the ground, let us be absolutely clear that that would be the right thing to do.
But what of the future in Syria? We have heard across the Chamber the view that increasing our direct military intervention will not do anything other than increase and prolong the suffering of the Syrian people. As recognised by many noble Lords, we cannot achieve a military victory in Syria—not without a huge cost to ourselves, hundreds of thousands more civilian deaths and the risk, of course, of triggering direct conflict with Russia. To me, that is unacceptable.
Alistair Burt, the Minister of State for the Middle East, has said repeatedly that the best opportunity for peace and security is,
“to support the Geneva process … and to work as hard as we are diplomatically to get the parties to find a better answer to the conflict”.—[Official Report, Commons 12/3/18; col. 677.]
As difficult as it is, we must renew the efforts to get all non-jihadist parties around a table, with no preconditions, agree a ceasefire and work out a long-term political solution. That is the only way war will end. If part of that solution requires UN peacekeepers on the ground, then, as the leader of the Opposition said on Sunday, there may be a role for UK forces in that.
In the last strategic defence and security review, great stress was placed on the UK’s commitment to a rules-based international order. The dangers of seeing that international order unravel are multifold. We have heard many points about that expressed in the debate. Of course, the dangers are caused not least because President Trump has a fondness for unpredictability—a characteristic long noted as dangerous in foreign policy. Trump started 2018 with a flurry of tweets that sparked protests across the world, caught allies off guard and further divided opinion in Washington.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said in a debate last year that,
“the rules-based international order, so painstakingly built up over the 70 years since the disasters of two world wars, is currently under greater challenge than it has ever been”.
That has been totally reinforced by noble Lords in today’s debate. He suggested that,
“the response so far of countries such as ours … which still regarded its maintenance as a national interest … has been quite inadequate in the face of those challenges”.
We need, as he put it,
“to make a better job than we have done in the past of setting out a compelling case for the benefits of a rules-based international order”.—[Official Report, 19/1/17; col. 390-1.]
That case needs to cover, as we have heard in the debate, a whole range of our international commitments, not just to the United Nations, which I passionately believe in, but also our obligations to NATO and to the World Trade Organization. Of course, it also means making absolute common cause with like-minded countries and our former partners in the European Union. That is another key element of this debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond very clearly to the questions that have been put to him by all noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on what will be the mechanism to maintain what has been incredibly effective co-operation, which has achieved a coherent policy with our allies to meet the challenges we face. We need to understand what will be coming in terms of how we achieve that ongoing co-operation.
Much of the National Security Capability Review is about how the Government use diplomats, development assistance, Armed Forces, security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement and soft power to protect and promote our interests and values. If we are going to have the international security and stability that we seek, development, defence and diplomacy have to go together. As we have heard in this debate, particularly from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, not only should we assert that need, but we must demonstrate a joined-up, whole-government approach with a strategy that is properly funded.
We have heard from many noble Lords, particularly in my noble friend’s introduction to this debate, about defence spending and the need to increase it. We should not forget, however, that the UK spends less per head on diplomacy than the US, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We need to ensure that we properly understand that we must meet our obligations with the proper and necessary resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, referred to sanctions. Of course, that is another effective tool in our armoury that has been diminished by our exiting the European Union. We had a long debate about the sanctions Bill. I would like to hear from the Minister just how effective he believes sanctions are, particularly those in the context of Syria and Russia and those in response to the attacks that took place in our own country. I would be grateful if he would explain exactly how he thinks the system is now working. I am particularly concerned about Syria: it was disappointing that the Chancellor was not aware of the value of Syrian assets in the United Kingdom. It does not have to be that way. As noble Lords know from the debates that we have had in this Chamber, particularly on the sanctions Bill, the Government could accelerate the introduction of the full public register of the real owners of UK property. It is concerning that the Government have dragged their feet on this issue and have delayed the implementation of the overseas property register, weakening the ability of our authorities to tackle corruption and international terrorism. According to international reports, the UK is recouping far less in corrupt assets from individuals linked to the Syrian regime than other countries.
I have banged on a bit too long in my response today, but I want to reiterate the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in relation to the new fusion doctrine, which involves using our security, economic and influence capabilities to maximum effect to protect our national security and economy and influence our goals. Applying this doctrine to Russia, the Prime Minister said that our approach to that country is to “engage but beware”. To be honest, I feel that the Government’s strategy on Russia is not delivering on either of these.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it comes as no surprise to me that a debate devoted to our national security should have elicited so many contributions of real depth and insight from your Lordships, and I therefore begin by thanking all those who have taken the trouble to speak this afternoon. To my mind, a number of big themes have emerged and many noble Lords have recognised that our national security situation today is more serious than at any point since the end of the Cold War. As my noble friend Lord Ahmad made clear, it is the depth and breadth of the threats we face that is different now, and even greater than when we last assessed them fully, in the 2015 SDSR.
What is also clear is that we face a range of threats from state powers, not just the terrorists and insurgents who have often been the focus of recent debates. Particular events are fresh in all our minds. In recent weeks Salisbury and Syria have shown that chemical warfare, a scourge of the early twentieth century, is still something that we need to counter. As a Government, we have endeavoured to show leadership against these two brutal attacks; first, by attributing and exposing them, which improves understanding of the nature of the threat; secondly, by proposing and implementing tough responses, which raise the cost for those adversaries who would otherwise act with impunity; and thirdly, by building international support that ensures that our responses are even more effective and maximise the combined effect, whether through diplomatic expulsions after Salisbury or the precision of the missile strikes in Syria last weekend. A heavy price has been paid by our adversaries and we have sent a crystal-clear message.
On Syria, we know that our response to the CW attack degrades Assad’s capabilities and we hope it deters further chemical weapon use. As noble Lords know from earlier statements, our response was not designed to change the fundamental course of that conflict. However, we remain clear that the only appropriate outcome in Syria is a negotiated settlement that takes account of legitimate grievances. I will say more about that later. While on occasion we are obliged to be reactive, this Government are determined not to be buffeted by security crises, but to shape them by internationalising our agenda. NATO is at the heart of our defence approach. The alliance has taken important and lasting steps in recent years to build a robust response to the challenge posed by Russia.
The Kremlin’s aggression in Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 made clear in stark terms that the rules-based order is under threat and the free choices of European states must not be taken for granted. NATO’s enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states and Poland, along with air and naval patrols north and south, have shown a clear commitment to collective defence, while being measured and non-escalatory. The UK is one of the most active contributors. An ever-stronger deterrent is being built with a NATO badge. This coming October the alliance will hold its biggest exercise of the year in and around Norway. It will involve some 35,000 forces from 30 countries, with as many as 70 ships and 130 aircraft. The UK will play a full part, contributing Royal Navy and Royal Air Force platforms and an Army HQ. This training will show that NATO is credible and able to operate at an impressive scale with integrated multinational forces. This year’s NATO summit will also reform command structures and refocus on the north Atlantic as a contested environment on which the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff has placed great emphasis.
Russia uses what some have termed “reflexive control” to deceive us and manipulate domestic and international audiences, as well as intimidate the West. We must not fall victim to this or succumb to the Kremlin’s agenda. Its narrative is filled with disinformation and conspiracy theories that aim to weaken our unity and responses. We must also resist exaggerating the threat in the way that Moscow wants or following its feints when it seeks to distract us. Instead, we must and will expose the genuine attacks that it seeks to hide. The Government issued a démarche to Russia earlier this year over its NotPetya cyberattack in Ukraine and drew attention to the evidence for Russia’s role in the Montenegro coup attempt back in 2016. Deception is one facet of what our American colleagues call “grey zone conflict”—the space between peace and war where Russia acts with far less ethical or legal constraint and, importantly, strives to stay below our threshold of response. The range of hostile acts we face in this grey zone, including cyber, subversion and information warfare, can be serious. To counter threats of this kind, we must prepare to do so with allies and partners. All the time, we strive with them to appreciate the full scope of the threats and ensure our ability to respond. The modernising defence programme and the NATO summit in the summer are important parts of our developing approaches.
On geography and reach, our well-justified refocus on the euro-Atlantic region does not mean acting at the expense of our expeditionary ability or our long-standing commitment to security in the Arabian Gulf. This year will see the UK deploy some 4,500 members of the Armed Forces to the Gulf for Exercise Saif Sareea 3. That demonstration of our ability to project power at distance and intervene if required shows the flexibility, reach and capability of our Armed Forces and sends a strong message to our adversaries in the Middle East and globally that they should not assume a free hand.
Understandably, the role of Parliament has been a subject of discussion this week and in this debate. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition asked me to clarify the Government’s position. The Government take their responsibilities when using force most seriously. Combat operations receive the closest scrutiny and attention. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, that we share the principle that Parliament should be able to debate the deployment of UK military forces in combat. However, we must be clear that, for the success of some such deployments, we must not shackle all decisions on the use of force to pre-authorisation by Parliament. Had we done that in relation to the recent military action, it would have weakened our operational security by divulging military choices openly, including to our enemies. It would also have undermined our imperative for speed of decision and action. An adversary with more time to prepare for our response will naturally be better able to evade the action against him. I was grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lady Finn in that regard. Our ability to exploit uncertainty and maximise the element of surprise played a critical part in the success of the operation. Those two very reasonable concerns are supported by those in government and the Armed Forces who are seasoned in planning military action.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked me what would happen if Mr Assad staged a repetition of the chemical attacks of 7 April. Our actions were designed to disrupt the Syrian regime’s ability to conduct such attacks and to prevent further unacceptable human suffering. We know that we have not destroyed every part of Assad’s chemical warfare capability—that was not the intention—but we hope and believe that UK and allied action will deter such attacks in future in Syria, and deter others from believing that they can use chemical weapons with impunity. It is in our national interest to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria and to defend the global consensus that those weapons should not be used. Syria and others should be in no doubt of our resolve to uphold international norms and values.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, expressed concern that the strikes should worry the wider Arab community. They should not. This was a limited, targeted and effective strike with clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent civilian casualties. It was not about intervening in a civil war. My noble friend Lord Dobbs was spot on about that. To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, I emphasise that the legal basis for our participation in the strikes is humanitarian intervention. We have published that legal position. The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, to whom I listened with great respect, that the evidence of the Syrian regime’s culpability for the chemical weapons attack is very strong indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, asked whether the decision-making process leading up to the strikes was fully Chilcot-compliant. He, along with my noble friends Lord Attlee and Lady Pidding, will wish to know that throughout the planning stages, officials and Ministers have been acutely aware of learning lessons from the past and we have sought to apply the recommendations in the Chilcot report rigorously. From the start, we deliberately used structured and independent internal oversight and sought challenge from France and the US, and other agencies. A key component of that was the JIC process.
Decision-makers were informed directly by subject matter experts and an audit trail has been constructed throughout. We based our decision-making on an assessment from all sources available to us. We agreed a clear and realistic objective, developed a robust plan and allocated the appropriate resources. We considered a range of scenarios and developed contingency planning and preventative action. We gave space for debate and challenge, including through officials’ meetings in COBRA and ministerial meetings in the National Security Council and the Cabinet. Key to the operation were the consequence management assessments. We ran through a number of scenarios and then worked on plans for de-escalating the situation. The whole focus of the operation was a humanitarian one, so the focus on not causing casualties was inherent in the targeting from the start.
My noble friend Lady Helic, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Campbell and Lord Hylton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry asked about the future strategy for Syria and the game plan for ending the conflict. Mr Assad’s regime bears overwhelming responsibility for the suffering of the Syrian people. His oppression has caused untold human suffering, fuelled extremism and terrorism and created the space for Daesh. It has been suggested that we should recognise the reality of the Assad regime and rebase our diplomatic policy in the light of that. I listened carefully and respectfully to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Campbell, and others on that issue. However, I am afraid that I cannot offer any comfort to them.
The image of an ambassador of Her Majesty shaking hands with Mr Assad following a restoration of diplomatic relations with Syria is anathema to me and my ministerial colleagues. We believe that the Assad regime has lost all legitimacy, due to its atrocities against the Syrian people. In our view, a sustainable political settlement in Syria requires a political transition. For that reason, we remain committed to achieving our long-standing goals in Syria: defeating the scourge of Daesh and achieving a political settlement that ends the war and suffering, one which provides stability for all Syrians and the wider region. What should that look like?
Lord West of Spithead
Does the Minister believe that there is any possibility whatever of getting a diplomatic solution if we try to ignore Assad, who is a fact of life on the ground? Looking back over the years, Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of this country have had to shake hands with some pretty loathsome people because that is realpolitik—what the world is like—much as we do not like them. But if you do not do it, things can become worse.
Earl Howe
We certainly believe that Mr Assad needs to be a part of the negotiations leading to a long-term solution, as I shall explain. There needs to be a transition to a new, inclusive and non-sectarian Government who can protect the rights of all Syrians and unite the country, but we are pragmatic about how to achieve that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
In my time in the Foreign Office, recognition was not a seal of approval; the recognition was that somebody was in control. We have a mission in Pyongyang and in all sorts of places where shaking hands might not be what the noble Earl would wish to do, but that is what we are paid to do. We diplomats are paid to find out what the other lot are up to, and it is most important in relation to one’s foes.
Lord Marlesford
With great respect, there really is confusion in what my noble friend says. One moment he is saying that Assad has to be involved; the next moment he is saying that there has to be regime change; then he contradicts the idea that you have to talk to people of whom you disapprove and negotiate with them. It seems to me that, far from learning from the mistakes of the past, we are digging our heels into them.
Earl Howe
If my noble friend will be patient for just a minute, I think I can elucidate the point of confusion that he has just enunciated.
The UN-led Geneva process between the Syrian parties, mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 2254, remains the forum for reaching a lasting political settlement to end the conflict in Syria. The latest round was held in Vienna on 25 and 26 January. All international efforts need to be in support of the UN-led process. The Syrian negotiation commission engages constructively and without preconditions, but clearly to achieve progress the Assad regime must also engage credibly in Geneva and Russia must use all its influence to ensure that it does. I hope that that clarifies our approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked what other international action might be put in train. Shortly ahead of us are the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting and the NATO summit where we will discuss Syria further with our international partners. At the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 April, the EU 28 agreed further sanctions. I can assure the noble Baroness in particular that we will use all feasible existing avenues to achieve the settlement that I am sure we all desire to see.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me for an update on the OPCW inspection in Douma. We are deeply concerned by the news that UN security officials in Douma, in advance of the OPCW inspectors’ planned visit, came under fire. It is imperative that all parties offer the OPCW fact-finding mission team their full co-operation and assistance to carry out their difficult task. On 18 April, UN security personnel advising and supporting the OPCW fact-finding mission were engaged in further discussions and co-ordination with representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Russian military police on how to enhance and reinforce the security arrangements. Clearly, this is a fast-moving situation.
The noble Baroness also asked what support the UK is giving to refugees in the light of the Dubs amendment. As she knows, we are committed to resettling 20,000 vulnerable refugees by 2020. As of December 2017, a total of 570 had been resettled through the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme since it began in 2016. That is in addition to those we resettle under our gateway and mandate schemes and the thousands who receive protection in the UK under normal asylum procedures. In 2017, 6,212 people were provided with protection and support under a resettlement scheme in the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked what our assessment is of Turkey’s invasion of northern Syria, a topic also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Glasman, among others. We are closely following developments in Afrin and wider north-western Syria. We are concerned about recent reports of civilian casualties and tens of thousands of people fleeing the violence. The UK Government have called for de-escalation and the protection of civilians while recognising Turkey’s legitimate interest in the security of its borders. Ministers have urged their Turkish counterparts to do everything they can to minimise humanitarian suffering. We support the ongoing discussions between Turkey and the US and believe that a negotiated agreement, taking into account the security concerns of both parties, is necessary to prevent further conflict. The Prime Minister has raised the need for protection for civilians and proper humanitarian access with President Erdoğan, as has my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary with his Turkish counterpart.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether we were sending our envoy to Kobane. I have to say to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, that the UK has had only occasional diplomatic contact with the PYD but we will certainly use that channel to discuss the situation in Syria and the region. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked whether we had asked Saudi and Gulf states to cut off money and weapons to al-Nusra. We have close dialogue with Saudi and Gulf states on Syria, including on how to counter extremism and extremist groups.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and to answer my noble friend Lady Helic, we have a long-standing commitment to accountability for human rights abuses in Syria. The UK is at the forefront of global efforts to bring Daesh to justice for its crimes, about which the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, spoke so movingly. In September 2017, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted the UK-drafted Daesh accountability Resolution 2379, co-sponsored by 46 member states including Iraq. The resolution calls for the UN Secretary-General to establish an investigative team to collect, preserve and store evidence of Daesh crimes, beginning in Iraq. The team will be led by a special adviser with a mandate to promote the need to bring Daesh to justice across the globe. The UK has committed an initial £1 million to support the resolution and help to set up the UN investigate team. The resolution is focused exclusively on Daesh. The question of accountability for other actors in Syria, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere will continue to be pursued through other efforts.
My noble friend Lady Helic suggested that the UK funding of Syrian hospitals was only around £200,000. That is not correct. To date, DfID has provided £37 million to the World Health Organization, which operates in Syria. UK aid contributes to supporting vital health facilities in hospitals, offering first aid, trauma care, primary health services and reproductive health services. Since 2012, UK support in Syria has helped to provide 8 million medical consultations and over 3 million vaccines. The UK has committed £2.46 billion since the start of the conflict, our biggest ever response to a humanitarian crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether we had a dialogue with Iran. We are committed to tackling Iran’s destabilising activity in the region, particularly its ballistic missile programme and proliferation, through the JCPOA. The Minister for the Middle East was clear about this when he met his Iranian counterpart in February. We believe these matters need to be dealt with outside the JCPOA and, importantly, the deal allows us to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, spoke about the National Security Capability Review. The NSCR report explains how the Government are taking a transformative whole-of-government approach to national security in response to the worsening security situation. The approach is referred to in the report as the “fusion doctrine”, and it is designed to ensure that the UK makes better use of all our capabilities through economic levers and cutting-edge military resources to our wider diplomatic and cultural influence on the world stage. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, spoke of the need for culture change across Whitehall if the fusion doctrine set out in the NSCR is to become a reality. I agree with them and am confident that it can be done. There are several good examples of such cross-government working—
Baroness Helic
If I may correct the Minister, I made no reference whatever to hospitals. I would be grateful if he could actually answer the question I asked about the investigating mechanism that has been put in place. I believe the records say that the UK Government have committed £200,000 but that for the overall start-up programme to start will cost $14 million. I would just like to correct that.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. That was my misunderstanding and I will write to her with clarification on that point.
As I was saying, there are several good examples of good cross-government working. The UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security has seen the MoD, the FCO and DfID coming together very effectively. Another example is international peacekeeping, where we have seen successful co-ordination between those three departments. It can be done, and it will be.
In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about resources for community policing with a counterterrorism focus, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. The Government understand that police demand is changing, becoming increasingly complex. That is why, after speaking to all forces in England and Wales, we have provided a comprehensive funding settlement which is increasing total investment in the police system by more than £460 million in 2018-19. That includes £50 million for counterterrorism. The 2015 spending review and the SDSR protected funding for counterterrorism until 2020-21.
My noble friend Lord Suri, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Owen and Lord Campbell, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others spoke about the effect of Brexit on our contribution to European security. As the Government have said many times, we are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.
At the December European Council, the Prime Minister and other Heads of State welcomed the establishment of the Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, as a useful tool to support the development of capabilities that Europe needs for its security, provided that it remains complementary to NATO and encourages EU-NATO co-operation. The UK’s approach reflects our continuing commitment to European defence and security and to protecting the interests of UK industry. The UK has not joined PESCO—after leaving the EU, we cannot be a member of PESCO—but that does not diminish our wish to collaborate on the development of capabilities that we need for our shared security, which may include PESCO projects.
The way in which the UK may continue to take part in CSDP missions and operations is an issue that we are actively discussing with the EU Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned the European Defence Agency in particular. That is likely to be a key route by which we can continue to participate in European collaborative capability development and protect UK defence industry interests. The Prime Minister has made clear that we want to explore terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies, including the EDA.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that our defence relationship with France is deepening, not reducing. France is our most important defence partner after the USA. It is the only other European state that can deploy significant military forces globally on operations. We work closely with France on international security issues and military operations and have regular contact at all levels. We want to continue to deepen and broaden our defence and security relationship with France under the Lancaster House treaties, while also working towards a deep and special UK-EU partnership for the future that contributes to the prosperity, security and global power of Europe. The 2018 UK-France summit held at Sandhurst in January reaffirmed the strength of our defence and security relationship with France. France is one of several European countries with which we are strengthening our defence ties.
More broadly, in March 2018, the Foreign Secretary announced the creation of at least 250 new diplomatic roles and 10 new sovereign missions over the next two years, and today he has announced another nine new missions in Commonwealth countries.
Inevitably, the subject of UK defence spending was raised by several noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. The first duty of government is the safety and security of the British people at home and abroad. That is why we have committed to meeting the NATO guideline of spending at least 2% of our GDP on defence and to increasing our defence budget by at least 0.5% above inflation every year of this Parliament. The UK is one of the few allies to meet both NATO spending guidelines—that is not only the 2% of GDP but committing 20% of annual defence expenditure to major equipment and associated research and development.
I in no way wish to sound complacent. It is of course outputs rather than inputs that really matter. Indeed, the whole purpose of the modernising defence programme is to throw a clearer light on our defence needs and priorities and the resources required to deliver them. The whole purpose of the MDP is to ensure that defence is configured to address the evolving threats that we face while being sustainable and affordable. As the Defence Secretary and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff have said, we aim to achieve better military capability and better value for money. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will appreciate that, because this process is ongoing, I cannot yet answer his questions about specific capabilities. We intend to be able to share MDP headline conclusions by the summer.
I fear I would be testing the patience of the House if I continued much further. Let me therefore assure noble Lords that, on those issues and questions that I have not had time to address or answer in my response today, I will write as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Government will not be narrowly focused on the threats manifested most recently in Salisbury and Syria. Our long-term strategic challenges are critical, even where these attacks reveal facets of those greater challenges. With the recent national security capability review as a basis, and with the modernising defence programme to come this summer, the Government will show how we will strengthen our standing as a respected leader on international security.