House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
The Royal Navy plays a crucial role in patrolling the seas around the United Kingdom. As we leave the European Union, the needs and level of activity will change, and we are working with other Departments to assess what is required. The Royal Navy will continue to play a vital role in protecting UK waters.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given that fisheries protection will be an important component of a sustainable post-Brexit UK fishing policy, has the Secretary of State liaised with his counterpart at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about what funds will be available to the Royal Navy for fisheries protection and whether the number of operational days will be increased?
Gavin Williamson
The Department received an extra £12 million from the Treasury that we prioritised for that area. We are in dialogue with our DEFRA colleagues to ensure that we have the right levels of policing and support in our territorial waters. The Royal Navy is absolutely committed to delivering that, and we will work with DEFRA to ensure that it happens.
Scott Mann
Will the Secretary of State consider basing the Type 26 and Type 31e frigates in Devonport to protect Cornwall and Devon, and to support the great inshore fisheries and conservation authorities that currently protect the waters?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the fishermen of the north Cornwall coast, and I imagine that the deployment of the Type 26 would certainly see off the French and Spanish swiftly. He will be pleased to know that Plymouth will shortly be receiving an extra Type 23 frigate, which will be based at Devonport, and while I am sure that she will do some fisheries protection work, she will also be doing other work right around the globe.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Concerning the Royal Navy, SNP Members are most interested to hear whether the modernising defence programme will be grounded in the vacuous “global Britain” speak of Brexiteers, or if it will actually acknowledge the UK’s geostrategic location? Will the Secretary of State assure SNP Members that, unlike the 2010 and 2015 strategic defence and security reviews, the modernising defence programme will explicitly mention the north Atlantic and the high north, and their centrality to the assumptions made therein?
Gavin Williamson
The programme will mention fisheries, the high north and everything else that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would love to see in it.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
The Fishery Protection Squadron is the oldest established unit in the Royal Navy, but does my right hon. Friend agree that technology is moving on and that a combination of data analytics, satellite imaging and the protections that we are now able to deploy around the Pitcairn Islands marine protected area, for example, are the sorts of technologies that we can add to save costs?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to consider new technologies to assist the Royal Navy and its work. It is a large ocean and there are many threats involved in ensuring that it is properly policed, so we need to embrace new technology, working hand in hand with the Royal Navy, to ensure that our waters are safe from foreign fishermen intruding into our territory.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I am encouraged by what I hear from the Secretary of State about extra resources being made available. We anticipate an increase in the fishing fleet post-Brexit, so will he assure me that the fisheries protection fleet will expand accordingly?
Gavin Williamson
We will be examining what capability our fisheries protection fleet needs. Three offshore patrol vessels are currently engaged in this work, so we will be considering whether that needs to be expanded and how to fund it properly.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
We are taking steps to ensure strategic affordability through the modernising defence programme and our annual financial management processes. The cost of the plan is reviewed on an ongoing basis, and we expect to publish the equipment plan financial summary for 2018 to 2028 in the autumn.
Mr Cunningham
Can the Minister confirm that the Government still intend to procure the full 138 F-35s, as previously announced?
Guto Bebb
It gave me great pleasure to be present at RAF Marham on Wednesday to welcome the first four F-35s. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the first 48 are fully paid for and committed to. We are looking at everything in the modernising defence programme, but the current situation is that we still anticipate the purchase of 138 F-35s.
Graham P. Jones
The Public Accounts Committee said in a recent report:
“The Equipment Plan for 2017 to 2027 is not realistic and the Department lacks cost control.”
Does the Secretary of State share my deep concern about his Department’s equipment budget being in such an appalling state?
Guto Bebb
I am sure that the Secretary of State shares my view that the Public Accounts Committee does an important job, but it is important to state that the assumptions made in the National Audit Office report, which underpin the report of the Public Accounts Committee, highlight the possibility that every single project will end up with no efficiency savings and that the worst-case scenario will be achieved on cost controls. We are very confident we have an equipment plan that is affordable but, as I have stated, we are looking at all issues as part of the modernising defence programme.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many drones will we have for the RAF, the Royal Navy and the Army by 2027, both for reconnaissance and for taking out our enemies?
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the Type 26 frigates are being built within budget and will continue to provide jobs for the Scottish workforce for years to come?
Guto Bebb
I can confirm that the Type 26 project is going extremely well. The first blocks have been built, the steel has been cut and the first three ships have been named. The really important point, which was highlighted in a recent Westminster Hall debate, is the fact that the last apprentices to work on the Type 26 project have not yet been born. That shows the long-term commitment to shipbuilding on the Clyde that the Type 26 project represents.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The NAO estimates that, of the £9.6 billion shortfall in the equipment budget, £1.3 billion is for the new Type 31e frigate. Can the Minister assure the House that, in the autumn, the budget line for the Type 31e will be included in the financial summary?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the arrival of the F-35s on British shores is a signal to the world that “global Britain” is not empty rhetoric, as some would have us believe, but a demonstrable fact?
Guto Bebb
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a statement of our aspiration, and it is also a significant statement on the contribution of defence to our national prosperity. Some 3,500 F-35s will be procured worldwide, and 15% of them will be produced here in the United Kingdom. That is equivalent to 525 platforms, which is a significant vote of confidence in UK industry.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Can the Minister confirm to the House the details of a letter he sent to me saying that the fleet support vessels will be bound by EU rules on state aid?
Guto Bebb
The situation, as per the shipbuilding strategy and as per the letter I sent to the hon. Lady, is that we are looking to procure the fleet solid support ships. The shipbuilding strategy aims to ensure that we have a strong shipbuilding sector, and a strong sector also needs a degree of competition. We are protecting warships as a national capability, but we are opening other elements of the shipbuilding strategy to international competition.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that keeping our armed forces equipped to the very highest standard, well led and with a strong fighting spirit, is the best deterrent our country has?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
“Not affordable”, “not realistic”, “not complete”, “unbalanced” and “unmanageable”—those are some of the politer things that have been said about the Government’s equipment plan. The comments have been made not by the Government’s political opponents, but by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. Not since the end of the second world war have there been such devastating criticisms of a Government defence programme.
This £20.8 billion black hole in the MOD’s equipment plan has arisen due to this Government’s shameful incompetence. How do they intend to get out of this mess, and can we look forward to extra resources from the modernising defence programme?
Guto Bebb
I would say, at the risk of repeating myself, that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee do important work for this House, but I should highlight the fact—I have said this once but I will say it again—that the figures quoted in the NAO report were a worst-case scenario. It looked at every single project hitting the worst-case scenario and at no efficiencies whatsoever being created within the programme. We are considering all these issues as part of our modernising defence programme, but I genuinely say to the hon. Gentleman that he should read the report with a bit more care and understand it.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
The Ministry of Defence takes cyber-threats very seriously, and we regularly assess our ability to defend against them. We are strengthening our defences against increasingly sophisticated attacks through a wide range of technical, operational and administrative measures, including close co-operation with the National Cyber Security Centre.
Rehman Chishti
I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he clarify how much the Government intend to spend during this Parliament to improve UK cyber-security?
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful for that question as it gives me the opportunity to highlight that we have invested and continue to invest in cyber-capabilities, including with the opening of the defence cyber-school in March, a £40 million investment in a new cyber-security operations capability, and £265 million towards a new cyber-vulnerability investigation programme.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The further east one goes, the greater the awareness of the cyber-threat in individual countries. Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Sweden have all published advice on how to deal with that threat. What do this Government intend to do to build resilience among the British people and understanding of botnets, hacktivists and all the other ways in which Russia is attacking our political and social institutions?
Mark Lancaster
I think that we are well on our way. The 2015 national security strategy reaffirmed cyber as a top tier 1 risk. That was precisely why we opened the NCSC, which helps to co-ordinate the work of government and the private sector. It is also why we now consider cyber to be essential in our armed forces’ core skills.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Minister’s reply shows astonishing complacency. We know that cyber-attacks are a key plank of Russia’s hybrid warfare, where fake news, Twitter bots and even ambassadors are used to create confusion, for example regarding the findings of the investigation into MH17. What steps is the Minister taking to educate the British public about the way in which Russia is systematically using our open, democratic, free society to weaken the European Union and to return to a Europe of nation states controlled by spheres of influence?
Mark Lancaster
Frankly, I am staggered that the hon. Lady thinks that £1.9 billion of investment somehow represents complacency from this Government. I have already outlined exactly how the MOD is investing in cyber. In case she has not visited—it would be interesting to know whether she has—let me say that we also have the NCSC, which is only a mile down the road. If she has not been, perhaps she should go to have a look for herself at what the Government are doing to respond to her request.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I met NATO Defence Ministers met last week to discuss progress towards next month’s summit. The UK wants NATO to strengthen its deterrence and defence capabilities while ensuring that dialogue with Russia continues as part of the alliance’s commitment to avoiding misunderstanding and miscalculation.
Mr Sheerman
I tabled this question before the disastrous consequences of the failure of the G7 in Canada. Does it not seem as though this country is back in the 1939—isolated from Europe, with NATO under threat and with a big gulf between us and our traditional United States ally? What is the Secretary of State going to do about it?
Gavin Williamson
In my discussions with the US Defence Secretary, he has been clear about the US commitment to NATO and European defence. Let us not underestimate how supportive the US has been of NATO, or its commitment over the next couple of years to pump resources, troops and money into ensuring that our defence is the very best we can possibly have.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
NATO is quite rightly concentrating on the Russian threat to the east and to the south-east of Europe, but what more can we do to encourage it to take an interest in the high north and the Arctic, where the Russians have recently built eight new military bases at enormous cost? They also have huge submarine activity coming out into the north Atlantic and have reinvented the old bastion concept that was left over from the cold war. Surely there is a huge threat there and NATO has to do something about it.
Gavin Williamson
We have seen a considerable increase in Russian activity in the high north, and we have seen an increase in our activity in the high north as well, with HMS Trenchant taking part in ICEX—Ice Exercise 18—and the announcement of the additional Astute class submarine, HMS Agincourt. This is all about how we invest to keep ourselves safe and the north Atlantic free from threats.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Further airstrikes in Syria on Friday left civilians dead and injured. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with our NATO colleagues about how we can make sure that Russia upholds international humanitarian law?
Gavin Williamson
Syria is yet another of those areas of conflict where we see Russia so heavily involved. We have been working with the Syrian Democratic Forces to make sure that we give the level of support that is needed, and we will continue to have a dialogue with our allies to do everything we can to bring a peaceful solution to Syria. We need a diplomatic dialogue and Russia has to step up to the plate. It has to recognise that it needs to put pressure on the Assad regime to stop the dreadful, atrocious actions that are continuing to be carried out on the Syrian people. This has to be brought to an end.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm the role that Romania is playing in tackling the Russian threat and what resources the UK is putting into Romania?
Gavin Williamson
We have been working closely with Romania, with Royal Marines working closely with Romanian defence forces, but more recently the Royal Air Force has been deployed in Romania to deliver air policing over that country and its neighbours. As a result of that RAF support, there has been a significant drop-off in the number of Russian incursions.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Just a couple of weeks ago, myself and SNP colleagues returned from the Ukrainian town of Avdiivka, which is just two miles from the contact line of the conflict. We witnessed at first hand what Russian aggression really looks like against civilians, yet at the weekend President Trump made the astonishing claim that President Obama was to blame for the illegal invasion of Crimea. Will the Secretary of State set the record straight that this Government do not hold that view and that Russia is to blame for the illegal invasion of Crimea?
Gavin Williamson
Russia is solely to blame for the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the activities that have occurred there.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am extremely grateful for that answer.
Thinking of national security in the broadest context and Russian influence, of course we learned at the weekend of revelations concerning Russian influence operations as far UK electoral contests go, which showed that Russia’s operations are as widespread as they are pernicious. What action is the Secretary of State taking in government and with NATO allies to crack down on Russian money flowing through London and to reform Scottish limited partnerships? Does he agree that that is not only in our interest, but in the collective interest of our partners, including Ukraine?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has completed his disquisition and we are deeply grateful to him for doing so.
Gavin Williamson
A number of the areas that the hon. Gentleman touched on are probably more suitable for Treasury questions, but we continue to work with our allies to make sure that everything that we can do is implemented to stop the flow of Russian money into our country and others.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
We are committed to supporting a thriving and internationally competitive defence sector. We have published our national shipbuilding strategy and refreshed our defence industrial policy, and we are developing a combat air strategy. In March, the Defence Secretary announced he had invited my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) to conduct a review of the defence contribution to prosperity, and I look forward to the publication of that report shortly.
Mike Amesbury
The fleet solid support ship contract said that there would be the potential to bring jobs and work to shipyards across the UK. Does the Minister not agree that those ships should be built in Britain, and will he make this a UK-only competition?
Guto Bebb
I have consistently argued that the national shipbuilding strategy should be supported across the House, as it offers real support for our shipbuilding industry. We designate warships as a sovereign capability to be built in the UK. Other ships are open to international competition, but I am confident that there will be British yards putting in bids for that work.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend is well known for his championing of issues to do with the Royal Air Force. It is important to say that the Ministry of Defence is currently going through a process of considering the replacement for that capability, and we are also considering the situation with regard to Sentinel moving forward. A decision will be made in due course, and he will be informed at that point.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
When the Minister sits down after this series of questions, will he remind the Secretary of State, who I see is not listening, that he has been to a number of yards that will compete with Cammell Laird, but not to Cammell Laird itself? When he is deciding on the shipbuilding programme, he needs to be seen to be fair as well as awarding us orders.
Guto Bebb
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The process will be seen to be fair, because it will be fair. This is a real commitment that we are providing to the shipbuilding sector. We are absolutely committed to it, and we have adopted the shipbuilding strategy. I hope that he will have confidence in the process.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Engineers in Great Baddow in Chelmsford have been designing world-class radar systems for generations. Will the Minister take into account local skills and jobs when awarding the next contract, to make sure that British capabilities are not compromised?
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend makes an important point about taking into account the whole contribution made to our economy when a contract is awarded. She will be interested in the new Treasury Green Book and also in some of the conclusions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow in his report on prosperity.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
No decisions have been taken on sending additional UK troops to Afghanistan. The UK makes an important contribution to the non-combat NATO mission in Afghanistan, where our troop commitment is kept under regular review to ensure that it remains suited to the needs of the mission.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister will be aware that, just today, 12 civilians, including women and children, have been killed in a suicide bombing attack outside a Ministry in Kabul. This is part of a string of attacks that have happened despite ceasefire efforts by President Ghani. Does the Minister agree that we very much need to protect the gains that we have made at the expense of blood and treasure in Afghanistan over many, many years, and will he consider looking at whether we need to provide more support to the Afghan security forces?
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. He will understand that, as I spent time in Afghanistan myself in 2006, this subject is very close to my heart. I am determined that we should not, as he says, lose that blood and treasure. Indeed, I raised that issue with Dr Abdullah Abdullah, the Chief Executive of Afghanistan, when I met him last Thursday. We will look at the matter very carefully to see what further support we can offer.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State made a welcome concession on the issue of Afghan interpreters, but it may be small comfort to those with constituency cases if, as reported, only 50 additional interpreters and their dependants will be allowed to come to the UK. Instead, will the Government look again at the whole process of assessing interpreters and at every case? There are some very deserving cases out there.
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I chair a joint committee with the House of Lords on this issue, where we do indeed go through that process very carefully. We pluck out individual cases on a quarterly basis and review them for that very reason.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker
It is very good to see the Minister. I was in his constituency on Friday speaking to school students, and they spoke of him with great warmth and affection.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that I told the right hon. Gentleman, but if I did not do so, I will be the first to apologise. I am pretty sure I did. Anyway, it was a great joy.
Mr Ellwood
On reflection, Mr Speaker, I think I did receive some message that you were heading there.
We can be extremely proud of our armed forces, but if we are to continue to recruit the brightest and best, we must continue to invest in our equipment and training, but also in the welfare of our people. I am pleased that we are moving forward with the future accommodation model, which will give our armed forces personnel three choices: to remain on the garrison in the unit, inside the wire; to step outside and rent accommodation; or to get on the housing ladder by purchasing property.
Alex Sobel
The Royal United Services Institute criticised the future accommodation model, saying that it was woefully inadequate and behind schedule. Will the super-garrison at Catterick be finished on time, to ensure that armed forces personnel can live on garrison? Does the Minister think that the sale to Annington Homes in 1996 was a mistake?
Mr Ellwood
With due respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing up a number of issues. The future accommodation model has yet to start, but the pilot scheme is on track to start in December. We have been working closely with the families federations, which have themselves recommended the locations for the pilot schemes. I very much look forward to this work taking place in December.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Recently, concerns have been expressed to me about the quality of grounds and buildings maintenance at armed forces accommodation at Woodhouse in my constituency. The Minister’s commitment to our armed forces personnel is well known and clear. Can he reassure me that the future accommodation model will include high-quality maintenance, and will he meet me to discuss that specific issue?
Mr Ellwood
Accommodation is very important. As I have mentioned, equipment and training are one thing, but we must ensure that we look after our people. The level of accommodation is one of the reasons why armed forces personnel choose to leave, which is why we are investing in more modern accommodation. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. The Secretary of State and I take very seriously the matter of upgrading the accommodation that we offer our armed forces personnel.
Mr Speaker
I call Christian Matheson—[Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) has been very courteous in sitting there quietly, but I believe that he actually wanted to come in on this question; I do beg his pardon. Have a go, man.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The affordability of the future accommodation model relies heavily on the present rent adjustment on the Annington Homes estate. As we know, that is due to be renegotiated for 2021, with expectations that rents will rise significantly. The Tories were warned in 1996 that the sell-off of married quarters was a mistake, and that is exactly how it has transpired. What urgent steps has the Department taken to ensure that the rent renegotiation does not further cripple the MOD budget?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of matters. I agree with that there is a question mark over what happened in the past, but it did happen, and we now need to move forward to provide the necessary offering for our armed forces personnel. As I mentioned, we are working with the families federations to ensure that we get the deal necessary to make accommodation affordable for our troops.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
The Ministry of Defence is working closely with other Government Departments, the UK aerospace sector, academia and international partners to explore the UK’s future approach to combat air capabilities. We intend to publish the initial findings this summer.
Christian Matheson
We have a world-leading aerospace sector, but we cannot deliver the combat air strategy on our own. Does the Minister expect most of our future collaboration to be with Europe or the United States?
Guto Bebb
I think it is fair to say that we are undertaking a combat air strategy because the UK is a global leader in the field. UK industry’s export capabilities in combat air are well known, with £6 billion of exports last year, so we are approaching partnerships across the globe. The Department has written to partners in the US, across Europe and further afield.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
The Ministry of Defence is working closely with the defence industry to understand the implications and opportunities presented by the UK’s departure from the European Union. We want to explore how our industries can continue working together, but it is worth noting that current collaborative capability projects, such as Typhoon, are managed bilaterally or with groups of partners, rather than through the EU.
Bambos Charalambous
Does the Minister agree that a clear commitment to stay in a customs union with the European Union would provide certainty to industry and investors that they will not be hit by needless tariff barriers after Brexit?
Guto Bebb
What we need moving forward is a strong relationship with the European Union to ensure that we have as frictionless trade as possible with the European Union. I do not think that remaining within the customs union is a prerequisite for a successful defence industry.
Alex Cunningham
American-owned Darchem in Stillingham is just one of the manufacturing firms in my constituency providing aerospace and other engineering products to the military. It really needs certainty about future tariff-free trading with the EU. Will it get that tariff-free trading?
Guto Bebb
The Government’s aim and aspiration is to ensure that there will be tariff-free trade with the EU. I think that the company referred to by the hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to see a Government who are proactively pushing forward the combat air agenda. We are world leaders in combat air—as I highlighted, 15% of every F-35 is manufactured here in the United Kingdom. We are leading on this issue, and the Government are supporting industry in that leadership.
Gill Furniss
The Government have often used EU rules as an excuse for not buying British steel for big defence projects. Can the Minister guarantee today that post Brexit, Royal Navy support ships and similar projects will use 100% British steel?
Guto Bebb
I wish I could offer the guarantee that the hon. Lady requests, but it is not possible to do so, because the steel required for the parts of the ships that we are building is not currently available from the United Kingdom. In the work that we are doing on the Type 26 frigate, for example, well over 50% of steel, by value, is from the United Kingdom. However, I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to complain if we had defects in our capability as a result of buying incorrect steel.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
How are the preparations for the UK’s alternative to participation in Galileo going?
Guto Bebb
That is a crucial question, because our involvement with Galileo is important not just for our own security but for that of the European Union. We have committed significant funds to Galileo over the years. We have an obligation to our industry and to our defence capabilities to ensure that we investigate thoroughly the possibility of remaining within the Galileo programme. However, work is being undertaken on potential alternatives in case they are necessary.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK defence industry was on show this week with Operation Catamaran 18, involving UK and French amphibious forces. Can the Minister confirm that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, two great examples of UK military endeavour, will not be cut in the forthcoming modernising defence programme?
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
Small businesses play a crucial role in our defence capability. To support them, we have launched a supplier portal that brings together a range of information and advice for new suppliers, and we have appointed a champion for smaller businesses to drive engagement. We also now require our largest suppliers to advertise their subcontracting opportunities on Government platforms.
Jeremy Quin
Anti-drone technology produced by an SME in Horsham has been used very successfully by US forces on operations for more than a year now. Will the Minister assure the House that the MOD will always go for best in class in procurement, and that this is open to smaller manufacturers, as it is with our allies?
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the importance of SMEs in innovation and capability. Our refreshed defence industrial policy published last December highlights how we are encouraging competition within the defence sector, maximising opportunities for SMEs. For example, we have produced new short-form contracts that make it easier for SMEs to bid into MOD opportunities.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that SMEs depend on main contractors for an enormous amount of their work, and that that is why his previous replies on the fleet support ships have been so disappointing? Can he imagine our European G7 partners, let alone President Trump, buying navy support ships from foreign yards? When is he going to shake off Treasury dogma, wake up to European reality, and buy British ships built in British shipyards by British workers, backing British engineering firms large and small, and backing British steel?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I have regular discussions with the Chancellor. The modernising defence programme will ensure that our armed forces have the right capabilities to address evolving threats. The Government are committed to spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, and the defence budget will rise by at least 0.5% above inflation every year of this Parliament, taking it to almost £40 billion by 2021.
Dr Lewis
I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful reply. Would he like to take this opportunity to endorse the suggestion by his immediate predecessor that we should aim to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? Does he agree that that would be a useful staging post on the road to the 3% that we really need? Finally, would the forthcoming NATO summit not be an excellent opportunity to announce any such advance?
Mr Speaker
I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to give us his usual mantra, “We need three to keep us free,” but it was incorporated in the gravamen of his question.
Gavin Williamson
I think my right hon. Friend is saving that for the next Defence questions.
We need to be looking at the threats that are starting to evolve right across the world, including in Europe. Those threats are increasing dramatically, and we have to ensure that we have the right capabilities to meet them. That is why we have the modernising defence programme to look in detail at how those threats are evolving, and why we are leading that analysis in the Ministry of Defence rather than any other part of Government. We want to come up with the solutions and answers to ensure that Britain and our allies are defended to the very best of our capability.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
The Secretary of State knows that it is about not simply the amount of money but when it is made available for key programmes. It was great to welcome him up to Barrow shipyard a couple of weeks back, but does he accept that unless he can persuade the Treasury to release more money for the Dreadnought programme in the crucial early years, we risk the programme being more expensive and potentially late, endangering the continuous at-sea deterrent?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. It is essential that we have the right resources at the right time to deliver that critical programme. That is why I was so pleased that we were able to secure an extra £800 million in this financial year to ensure that our nuclear deterrent is delivered on time and in budget.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will agree, we must adequately fund our armed forces to support those who selflessly put their lives on the line for our country—a concept that the Scottish Government do not seem to understand. Can he update the House on the measures that the UK Government are taking to mitigate Nicola Sturgeon’s Government’s tax hike for those brave service personnel?
Gavin Williamson
It is truly shocking to think that the Scottish National party decided to put that extra taxation burden on our service personnel in Scotland, especially when we asked them not to do so. That is why we are proceeding with a review rapidly, and we hope to report our findings to the House in the not-too- distant future.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
I am tempted to respond to that, but can the Secretary of State not convince the Treasury that building the Royal Navy support ships in-house at the likes of Rosyth would see a tax revenue gain for the Treasury and help us to retain skills, talent and investment in our shipyards? Is that not what the shipbuilding strategy is all about, or is the Treasury incapable of playing a team game?
Gavin Williamson
I thought for a moment that we were going to have an apology to the 70% of service personnel who are having to pay extra taxes as a result of the Nat tax that the hon. Gentleman’s party has introduced.
This Government are absolutely committed to shipbuilding. That is why we will be building eight Type 26 frigates in Glasgow and five offshore patrol vessels in Govan. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
A recent profile by BuzzFeed revealed that some colleagues have likened the Defence Secretary to Francis Urquhart, although they suggest that the fictional character may be a bit more sophisticated—they might think that; I couldn’t possibly comment. With Ministers arguing in recent weeks that defence funding should rise north of 2.5%, can the Secretary of State tell us what sophisticated tactics he will be using to get the Chancellor to agree?
Gavin Williamson
As a Yorkshireman born and bred, I know that we tend to be quite blunt and plain-speaking, so sophistication is not usually something that is attached to us.
Gavin Williamson
They are different in West Yorkshire.
What we are doing is taking the time to look at the threat and the challenges this nation faces. Over the past 10 years, we have seen the threat picture change so much. This is not just something we have noticed; from sitting down with our NATO allies, I know we are all seeing exactly the same. The world is getting increasingly dangerous, with state actors playing an ever greater role. It is right that we look at that closely, and make sure our armed forces have the equipment and resources they need to defend this nation against those threats.
Nia Griffith
In January, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is the Minister with responsibility for defence people, said that the cap on armed forces pay
“has been lifted…and we look forward to the recommendations that will be made in March.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 597.]
Given that it is now June and that this Government continue to be all words and no deeds, will the Secretary of State tell us when service personnel are going to receive the long overdue real-terms pay rise they deserve?
Gavin Williamson
It was the Treasury that announced the changes on public sector pay, but we are working very closely with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to get to the point where we can make such an announcement as swiftly as possible. I and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will be working closely together to ensure that that is done as swiftly as possible.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I hold regular discussions with my colleagues on this topic. Europe’s security is our security. We want to work closely with our European partners to keep our citizens safe and defend our shared interests and values, including through NATO and our future partnership with the European Union. Britain was committed to European security long before the creation of the European Union and our membership of it, and we will be committed to the security of continental Europe long after we leave.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer—I think. What discussions has he had with the Scottish Government regarding the potential exclusion and uncertainty surrounding future UK participation in the Galileo project?
Gavin Williamson
What we are seeing with the Galileo project is, frankly, the European Union acting in a most unusual and strange way. Why on earth would it wish to exclude Great Britain from a project that is so integral to the security of the whole of the European Union and many other countries? As Britain is currently the largest spender on defence in the European Union, we would have thought that it welcomed our involvement in the project and that it hoped that we would continue to support it, but if it does not want us, we can do this independently.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The UK Hydrographic Office, which makes most of the world’s shipping charts, is the only fundraising arm of the Ministry of Defence. It is based in Taunton, and I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Defence has retained it and is now investing in and helping to support a new state-of-the-art facility. Is this not exactly the kind of asset on which we should be building as we leave the EU to increase our prosperity and influence in the world?
Gavin Williamson
I know my hon. Friend fought a major fight to ensure that the investment came to her constituency and to preserve this important asset. It is a brilliant example of how the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces can play an important role not just in supporting defence, but in creating prosperity and jobs.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
We remain committed to maintaining the overall size of the armed forces, and we have a range of measures under way to improve recruitment and retention. The challenge is kept under constant review.
Alex Norris
Regarding Capita’s performance on the recruitment target, the Secretary of State was very clear when he said:
“do you have to give them a red card at some point if they don’t deliver? Yes, you do”.
Capita is not delivering, so when is it time for the red card?
Mark Lancaster
There have certainly been challenges, particularly with the introduction of the defence recruiting system, but 12,360 recruits joined the British Army last year. I have met the chief executive of Capita on several occasions, and an improvement plan is in place at the moment—I think we need to provide an opportunity for it to be run through—but, absolutely, there is an alternative if need be.
Martyn Day
Before the Scottish independence referendum, the UK Government promised to increase armed forces personnel from 11,000 to 12,500. As of October last year, there were fewer than 10,000 regular forces personnel stationed in Scotland. When will the UK Government keep their promise, or is this just another broken one?
Mark Lancaster
I understand the SNP’s desire to get more service personnel in Scotland, as that is more service personnel they can tax under their Nat tax—[Interruption.] At least the hon. Gentleman finds it amusing. I am pleased to say that there are 14,000 regular and reserve personnel in Scotland. Also, let us not forget that all of the Royal Navy submarines will be moving to Faslane, and there is the new Typhoon squadron in Lossiemouth and our infantry brigade too.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Cadet detachments are an ideal training ground for those young people considering a future career in the armed forces. Can my right hon. Friend outline what he is doing to increase recruitment from cadet forces and will he consider visiting my constituency to see the hard work and dedication put in by cadets in Erewash?
Mark Lancaster
We do not directly target cadets for recruitment in the armed forces. However, it is a fact that nearly 18% of members of the armed forces were once cadets and 4% of cadets go on to join the armed forces.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Potential recruits may well be concerned about the issue of legal claims against personnel and veterans, especially in the light of the Iraq historic allegations team debacle. It is now more than a year since the Conservatives made a manifesto promise to tackle those claims, and the issue has been raised repeatedly by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Why has nothing been done?
Mark Lancaster
Actually, a lot has been done. I appreciate it is now some time since that consultation was completed, but it really is a reflection of the complexity of some of the legal issues. I can assure the House that we will come back in due course.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I start by paying tribute to Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, who fulfilled his last day in the role of Chief of the Defence Staff before moving on to the role of chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Sir Stuart has served the Royal Air Force and his country for a long period and made such a difference to making sure that our armed forces have been properly represented.
I am also incredibly proud to be able to announce the four new cutting-edge F35s that arrived at RAF Marham just last week.
Mr Sheerman
The Secretary of State just confessed to being a blunt-speaking Yorkshireman, so will he give me a straight answer? He must be reeling from the events at the G7 in Canada. Are we prepared and would this country be able to defend itself if America takes its bat home and leaves NATO? Is he talking to the French and the Germans about this?
Gavin Williamson
The United States’ commitment to NATO is unequivocal. They are backing it not just with words but with deeds, and we should be incredibly proud of our long-term alliance with one of our very closest of friends and of the important role they have played in ensuring the freedom of Europe over the last 70 years.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
The Shoreham disaster was an absolute tragedy, but we have to move forward from that. Just at the weekend I was at RAF Cosford and saw the amazing air display that took place there. It shows how such displays can inspire future generations to join the Royal Air Force and play a role in their country’s defence, and I will certainly take the point up with the Civil Aviation Authority.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The review of the defence fire and rescue service has been running in various forms for 10 years now. With neither of the final two bidders having exactly a glowing past record, does the Secretary of State share my concern that if the contract is outsourced and we see a repeat of the Carillion situation, the consequences could be disastrous?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has taken too long. I had a briefing on this only last month and we will make progress. I heed the concerns that he raises.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend touches on such an important issue: looking after our veterans, in particular those who are homeless or who feel isolated. The Secretary of State moved forward with a 24/7 support helpline and is launching a new veterans strategy, which will be announced in November. It is important that every local council takes responsibility for having an armed forces champion who looks after those who are homeless and identifies what help can be given.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
We are at the demonstration phase, with 11 being manufactured. It is currently going through a trials programme and we will report back when that is complete.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
The House has a great duty towards all those who serve our country: not just our armed forces, but those who supported our country in Afghanistan and in so many other areas. I am certainly very keen to look at all options to see how best we can protect service personnel who have given so much in the service of our country.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
It is an interesting fact that since the second world war I think there have been only two years when the Army has been fully manned. There are challenges, but I am confident that we maintain all our operational commitments. The Army is currently approximately 95% manned, which I think is pretty good, but I am determined to get it up to 100%.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Reports suggest China is fast developing a new generation of military technology, focusing on artificial intelligence and autonomous weaponry, which will soon surpass the capability of the United States. Will the Minister outline what planning is under way with allies to keep up with those advances?
Gavin Williamson
What we are seeing is a number of state actors, not just Russia but China as my hon. Friend outlines, investing heavily in new technologies. It is absolutely right that we do the same, investing in those new technologies not only so we can defeat what they have but to have the capabilities ourselves for our armed forces.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Mark Lancaster
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting just one of the many training missions the British Army and other services carry out around the world. Indeed, we are currently operating in excess of 20 countries to provide non-lethal training.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State will share my hope for a successful summit between North Korea and the United States of America tomorrow, which will hopefully reduce military tensions on the Korean peninsula. What assessment has he made of the role UK armed forces could play to ensure that any deal is successfully implemented and enforced?
Gavin Williamson
Our armed forces have already been playing an important role in ensuring that United Nations sanctions are properly upheld. The deployment of HMS Sutherland and HMS Albion has been a part of ensuring that UN sanctions are upheld. We want a diplomatic solution, and all our work and all our efforts have to go towards ensuring that a diplomatic solution is found.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Mr Ellwood
I would be delighted to speak further with the hon. Lady on this matter to see what more can be done.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I warmly endorse the Secretary of State’s tribute to the Chief of the Defence Staff, but Sir Stuart Peach did say last week that he was deeply uncomfortable about the process of legacy investigations into veterans. I understand that several years ago, the Ministry of Defence did a lot of detailed staff work into the practicability of the statute of limitations. Would the Secretary of State promise the House that he will ask to see that work and perhaps be able to take it forward?
Gavin Williamson
I can certainly make that commitment to my right hon. Friend.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Mr Ellwood
I am well aware of the campaign not just by the hon. Gentleman, but by others. I am certainly happy to look into it in more detail. He will be aware that there are two components to this—risk and rigour, and avoiding duplication of other medals that have already been given—but I am certainly happy to discuss it further with him outside the Chamber.
Douglas Ross
Will the Secretary of State please tell my constituents at RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss barracks when this UK Government will mitigate against the Scottish National party’s Nat tax?
Gavin Williamson
I am certainly hoping to be able to report before the summer recess. We are very conscious that so much investment has gone into Lossiemouth and we do not want people to be disincentivised from moving there as a result of the Nat tax that has been imposed upon them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mark Lancaster
The EU has made it clear that we are not allowed to lead any operations after 29 March next year. However, we are continuing to negotiate how we might be able to take part—for example, Operation Sophia, Operation Atalanta or indeed, Operation Althea in the Balkans.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that I and the North Devon community have lobbied hard over the future of Royal Marines Base Chivenor. In the light of media reports over the weekend, is he able to confirm whether a decision is indeed imminent?
Mr Ellwood
On the invitation of my hon. Friend, I visited Chivenor and was very impressed with what is happening there. No decision has been made on Chivenor, so please ignore the reports in the media, and I will be more than happy to discuss where things are going with him outside the Chamber.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to an earlier question, can the Minister guarantee that by the end of this Parliament, the strength of the Army will be in excess of 80,000?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I asked every Government Department how many contractors they had employed for over one year and five years, and how many they had paid over £1,000 a day to. Can the Secretary of State explain why his was one of only two Departments that was either unwilling or unable to answer that question, and can I urge him to go back and find out how many contractors are paid over £1,000 a day, so that he, and we, can see how well he manages his Department’s spending?
Gavin Williamson
I would be more than delighted to make sure that my hon. Friend gets that information.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the ministerial team recognise the work of service dogs in the Army, Air Force and Navy, and in particular, welcome the establishment next week in this House of a memorial charity to those animals, to be based in Delyn constituency in north Wales?
Mark Lancaster
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valuable point. All too often, when we talk about our armed forces, we think purely of humans, but of course, for many centuries, animals have made a fine contribution, too.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If we cannot protect our service personnel from the Northern Ireland campaign by a statute of limitations coupled with the truth recovery process, who is going to be next: the Falkland Islands veterans, or even the last few from the second world war?
Gavin Williamson
As I touched upon earlier, it is clear that this House has a simple and clear view that we should always do everything we can to protect those who have served our country. We will look at all options to ensure that that is done.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Did the Secretary of State write to the Prime Minister about further deployment of troops in Afghanistan?
Gavin Williamson
We always keep our troop levels under review right across the world and this is something that we will always do going forward.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Progress on the REEMA site in Carterton has stalled for far too long. Will the Minister commit to working with me to provide the housing the RAF in west Oxfordshire so badly needs?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend raises an important point about making sure we have the correct accommodation, which is something we touched on earlier. I know there are big questions about what is happening in the Brize Norton area, and again I would be delighted to discuss the matter with him further.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
In its most recent report on the recruitment plan, the National Audit Office said that the plan was “not affordable”—full stop. The Secretary of State has been given seven recommendations. Which will have the most impact?
Guto Bebb
Once again, we appreciate the work done on that report and are taking it seriously—it is being considered as part of the modernising defence programme—but we state again very clearly that the MOD does not recognise as likely outcomes some of the worst-case scenarios.
Mr Speaker
Time is against us, but my judgment is that proceedings would be incomplete and the House sorely deprived without an intervention from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), which I trust will be of its usual poetic quality.
Mr Hayes
I was thinking exactly the same, Mr Speaker.
On behalf of the British nuclear test veterans, and as their patron, I welcome the Minister’s warm words earlier. It is right that we finally remember those who gave so much. Nevertheless, I want a little more. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the veterans to further the case that they should be awarded a medal? Some 1,500 of the 22,000 are left. This generation, by recognising and rewarding those brave people, would be doing a service to theirs—something of which we can be proud.
Gavin Williamson
I would be honoured to meet my right hon. Friend and the test veterans at the earliest opportunity.
Yemen
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I note in passing that today is the 31st anniversary of the election to the House of a number of right hon. and hon. Members still serving, including—there is a piquancy about mentioning this—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I call Mr Keith Vaz to ask the urgent question.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reports of an imminent attack by the Saudi-Emirati-led coalition on the port of Hodeidah and the humanitarian impact of such an attack.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on both his length of service and his question. Last Thursday, it was 35 years since I was first elected to the House—so there are a few of us old ones knocking around.
Alistair Burt
On these occasions, I am grateful that you have such a gift for words, Mr Speaker.
On a serious matter, reports have been circulating for some time of a possible assault on either Hodeidah or Hodeidah port. Information at the beginning of last weekend, including from troop movements, suggested that such an attack might be imminent. In view of our responsibilities to aid agencies, the Department for International Development issued a statement based on that information. It read:
“We are doing everything we can through diplomatic channels to discourage an assault on Hodeidah. However despite these actions, a military assault now looks imminent. The Emiratis have informed us today that they will now give a 3-day grace period for the UN [and their partners] to leave the city. Please take all precautions necessary to prepare for this and let us know if there is anything we can do to assist you in any way. We are thinking of you and your staff at this very difficult time.”
That is the email that was reprinted in The Guardian today.
The Government are and have been concerned about the potential impact of any assault on the city and port of Hodeidah for some time and have made their concerns clear to the Saudi and Emirati Governments. The UN assesses that an attack on Hodeidah could displace up to 350,000 people and leave hundreds of thousands of Yemenis without access to basic goods or healthcare. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Saudi and Emirati counterparts over the weekend, and we are in close touch with the UN humanitarian co-ordinator and the UN special envoy.
The majority of Yemen’s food and fuel imports enter through Hodeidah and Saleef ports and it is crucial that humanitarian and commercial imports continue to flow through the port. We urge all parties to facilitate access for essential imports of food, fuel and medical supplies into the country, including through Hodeidah. As with all aspects of the conflict, all parties must respect international humanitarian law and protect civilians.
No attack has yet taken place. Accordingly, we continue to urge all sides to de-escalate as a matter of urgency and to engage in the political process in good faith. The UN special envoy has previously expressed concern that conflicts in Hodeidah could take peace off the table “in a single stroke”. It is essential for him to be given the time that he needs to facilitate a negotiated solution that avoids conflict in the city and we support his efforts to do so.
It is important to recall the wider conflict. The conflict in Yemen is now in its fourth year. Houthi rebels took the capital by force in 2014 and displaced the legitimate Government of Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition action is designed to facilitate the restoration of effective governance. The Houthis have consistently failed to adhere to UN Security Council resolutions: they have, for instance, launched missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, prevented access to humanitarian supplies—which has led to significant damage to civilians—and prevented vital vaccinations.
We have been clear about the fact that there can be no military solution to the conflict. We continue to encourage all parties to show restraint, to return to negotiations and to engage in the UN-led political process in good faith, to work towards a comprehensive political settlement.
Keith Vaz
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and for your kind words. I also thank the Minister for what he has said.
The port of Hodeidah accounts for the entry of between 70% and 80% of humanitarian aid. As we have just heard, it is at risk of an imminent military assault by forces supported by the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition—a coalition strongly supported by this Government, who, of course, supply it with arms.
The three-day period that has been given to the aid agencies is simply not enough. Hodeidah has been the last lifeline to Yemen’s civilians since the conflict began —2.2 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance—and an attack on the port would be a catastrophe. The United Nations estimates that it could lead directly to the deaths of a quarter of a million people, roughly the population of the city of Leicester. It would devastate the peace process. As we heard from the Minister, Martin Griffiths, the UN envoy to Yemen, who has just taken up his post, has said that such an assault
“would, in a single stroke, take peace off the table.”
Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister today, after her statement to the House, to speak to Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, and tell them that they must immediately stop the military preparations for the offensive? Will he instruct our UN ambassador, Karen Pierce, to convene an emergency meeting of the Security Council to discuss this matter? At that meeting or before it, will the Government make a statement directly condemning an attack on Hodeidah and calling for a ceasefire as a matter of urgency?
Will the Minister convene, as a matter of urgency, a meeting of the Quint nations on Yemen this week? That was promised several months ago. Finally, if an attack on the port does take place—against the wishes of our Government—will we reconsider our support for the coalition, or in what way will we ensure that the peace process succeeds?
I know that the eyes of the world are on Singapore at this moment, but they should be on Hodeidah. Failure to take this action will lead to more slaughter of innocent Yemenis, and will be a stain on the conscience of Ministers, the Government and the House.
Alistair Burt
Obviously, we share much of the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Leicester East. That is why we have consistently made the case to the coalition that an attack on Hodeidah could have very serious displacement effects, and we have expressed our concern over a lengthy period. We will continue to do so. The Foreign Secretary did so over the weekend and those conversations will continue. I stress that no attack has yet happened and, even as we speak, the UN special envoy is engaged with both sides to see whether anything in the imminence of circumstances might move the negotiations along.
I have made the case to the House before that this is not a one-sided conflict. Areas under Houthi control have prevented humanitarian access. Abuses of international humanitarian law have occurred. The Houthis stop vaccinations and steal medical supplies.
The coalition came into effect to restore legitimate government to the people of Yemen. We have expressed our concern about any action taken by the coalition that might be in breach of international humanitarian law. We will continue to do so. The Foreign Secretary is in contact with other members of the Quint and those who are concerned about potential action. However, it remains the case that a negotiated solution could still be found. We are continuing to urge that the UN special envoy has the space to be able to do that. That has been our consistent approach over a lengthy period and we will continue to do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A good many colleagues are seeking to catch my eye and this matter is urgent, which is why I granted the question, but there are two important ministerial statements to follow and, unusually, today it may not be possible to accommodate all who wish to take part. However, participation will be maximised if questions and answers are brief. To be blunt, there is no time for preamble.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is Iran involved on one side in this conflict and is that a complication in the wish to find not only a brokered peace in Yemen but a solution to the Iranian situation?
Alistair Burt
My right hon. Friend is right: Iran does have a relevance to this conflict. It is engaged in supplying weaponry and support to the Houthis and we have consistently called on Iran to recognise the damage and danger done through its actions. It is still possible that Iran can be part of the solution and part of the answer to the conflict, as many parties that take part in conflicts clearly are.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the chair of the all-party group on Yemen, on securing it.
There is a bitter sadness in the fact that, less than three weeks ago, we were welcoming the publication of the all-party group’s latest report, a blueprint for bringing about a peaceful political solution to this terrible conflict and an end to the humanitarian crisis, yet here we are, 20 days later, facing the exact opposite—an attack on Hodeidah by the UAE, which according to the UN envoy, Martin Griffiths, will
“in a stroke, take peace off the table. ”
And not just that but, as has already been observed by Members on both sides and by every aid agency working on the ground, this planned attack will not just threaten the lives of the hundreds of thousands of civilians living in Hodeidah, but turn the humanitarian crisis facing the rest of Yemen into a full-blown humanitarian disaster. Why is this happening? After all, we are used to hearing the mantra in these debates that “There is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen.” However, let us be clear what that actually means. What it means is that we take it on trust that the Saudis and the Emiratis have the good sense and humanity to understand that any conceivable military solution would cause such catastrophic loss of life that both politically and morally it would be impossible to pursue. But that, I am afraid, is exactly what we now face in Hodeidah.
Trusting to the good sense and humanity of the UAE and the Saudis is therefore clearly no longer a viable option, so may I ask the Minister today whether, at the emergency session of the Security Council due to take place in a matter of minutes, the UK will take action and table an immediate resolution demanding that the UAE stop this assault on Hodeidah before it is too late, and will he immediately suspend the sale of arms for use in this conflict?
Alistair Burt
The United Kingdom will continue to do what it has done for a lengthy period, which is to seek to discourage any attack on Hodeidah or on the port. The Foreign Secretary has been engaged in this over the weekend, we will continue to be so and that same case will be made through the United Nations.
In relation to arms sales and the like, I remind the House again that this is covered by international humanitarian law. Any suggestion of breaches of that will be subject to the law, as always, and the UK will continue to consider any possible risk of that in any future arms sales.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend joined on the Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood); they demonstrate the joined-up effort that needs to go on here. However, has my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East had time to urge our defence attachés in the region to emphasise to the Emiratis that taking a city of 400,000 is not an easy task? Having served in the operation that captured Basra 15 or so years ago, I can assure him that the invasion is the easy bit; it is the governing it afterwards that makes life incredibly hard.
Alistair Burt
My hon. and gallant Friend speaks from experience. I can assure him that everyone who has been in contact with the coalition in relation to this has done exactly what he and everyone else in the House would expect in terms of expressing concern about how any assault might be carried out and the dangers involved. That is why we have sought to discourage an attack. The port and the city are separate—they may be separate targets—but our advice has been consistently the same in that we seek to discourage such an attack.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The United Kingdom Government must decide which side of history they want to be on. The imminent Saudi-led attack on Yemen’s largest port, Hodeidah, is set to cut off essential food, fuel and medical supplies, and the United Nations has estimated that
“as many as 250,000 people will lose everything—even their lives.”
Can the UK Government therefore unequivocally assure the House that no UK personnel will assist in this attack and that no UK-made weapons or equipment will be used? Do the UK Government agree that they must take the side of Yemeni civilians over Saudi Arabia and that this attack will be a line in the sand for the UK’s support for the coalition campaign? Given the imminent threat of major loss of life and starvation to an entire nation, will this Government finally and immediately cease all arms sales to Saudi Arabia? This is not in our name. Will the UK Government do the right thing, or will they go down in history as having blood on their hands?
Alistair Burt
In this House, mention is hardly ever made of the humanitarian abuses by the Houthi forces, with which the coalition is engaged, after the insurgents sought to remove a legitimate Government. There have been violations such as attacks on civilians in Aden and Taiz, intimidation of UN ships attempting to dock in Aden, the use of schools and hospitals for military purposes, the use of child soldiers, the targeting of aid workers and the imposition of restrictions on humanitarian access. We are on the side of Yemeni civilians—[Interruption.] We are on the side of the Yemeni civilians who face those things in Houthi areas every day. I repeat what I said earlier: we will continue to use our influence to discourage any attack on Hodeidah port. It would be nice to hear something about the Houthis every now and again from different sources.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Along with the rest of the UN Security Council, we are unanimously on the side of the Saudi-led coalition, which is trying to bring order to Yemen in the face of the Houthi rebellion. As we have heard from the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the port accounts for 70% to 80% of the imports into Yemen. Surely, our policy should be to aid the coalition we are supporting to take control of the port and the access into Yemen.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are short of time, and I have tried to make the point that if people asked short questions and got short answers, we would get through everybody.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the tactics being used to try to bring this conflict to a conclusion. Only a conclusion and a peace settlement will truly serve the interests of the people of Yemen. It is not for the United Kingdom to get involved in those tactics, but my hon. Friend makes a point about access to the port and how that can be used to benefit civilians.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Surely, though, unconditional support for the Saudi-Emirati coalition will never bring us to a point at which we can legitimately and credibly say that there is no military solution to this conflict.
Alistair Burt
Seeking to discourage an attack on Hodeidah is hardly unconditional support.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
What estimate has the Minister made of the amount of rockets and other munitions that have been fired by the Houthis into Saudi Arabia during the four years of the Yemeni conflict?
Alistair Burt
It is difficult to say. A recent rocket attack killed three Saudi civilians, and there have been a number of different attacks. Attacks on the airport and the royal palace in Saudi have been prevented. Should one of these missiles land on such a target, the whole circumstance in the middle east would change radically.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is of course right to condemn the Houthis; I have never heard any Member of this House defend them. The reason for the focus on the Saudis and the Emiratis is that we are allied with them. Can I press him to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about clearly condemning this proposed attack, and will the Prime Minister speak to the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as a matter of urgency?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the other side of this conflict, because it refers to why the coalition is engaged in the first place and why the UK should recognise its right to act to defend Yemeni civilians. We will continue to discourage action, and I will of course take the requests of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) to the Prime Minister.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Some 22 million people in the Yemen are in need of humanitarian aid. How can we deliver that aid when we are in the middle of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Alistair Burt
It is difficult, but we have remarkable people who seek to deliver UK aid. On 3 April, we pledged an additional £170 million to Yemen to cover the financial year 2018-19, and we are the fourth largest donor to the UN appeal, but we should all remember the courage and bravery of the aid agencies that are working to deliver aid in difficult circumstances.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Is there any prospect of the UN special envoy’s proposal to deal with the problem, which is to hand over control of the city and/or the port to the international community, making any progress?
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. There are several different possibilities for resolving the situation peacefully, but that possibility is certainly being discussed by various parties. Anything that allows a negotiated end to circumstances that cannot provide an answer for one party or the other should be encouraged.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The sooner this port is out of the control of the Iranian-backed Houthis, the more aid will get to civilians in Yemen. Why did the UN refuse to accept the requests from the Saudi-led coalition in March last year and April this year for the UN to take over supervision of the port? If the UN will not do that, surely there is no alternative but for the Saudi-led coalition to do it.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend makes the point that various offers have been made to bring the situation to a conclusion and for a peaceful solution to Hodeidah port, which requires the Houthis to do something in response to the entreaties made, but that has not happened so far. If the Houthis were to do so in the next 48 hours, that would make a significant difference.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is fair to say that there are few Saudi forces on this battlefront and that it is largely an Emirati-run operation, with Emirati troops, but led by 25,000 Yemeni soldiers. The Houthis are currently laying mines at the airport, and they are escalating the conflict in Hodeidah. They have mined the port, which has significantly reduced the amount of aid that can get in, and if they destroy it, that will adversely affect Yemen. If the Houthis blow the port up, would that constitute a war crime?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman’s knowledge is extensive. The Houthis might do just that, which is a demonstration of the dangers that have been caused by Houthi control of the port and other areas and one of the reasons why the coalition is engaged.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What assessment have the UK Government made of the number of people who will be killed or become refugees if the attack takes place? In what way is that influencing UK policy?
Alistair Burt
The UN has made various calculations. I referred in my statement to the fact that some 350,000 people might be displaced. It is not necessarily a question of numbers, however. Should an attack take place and people become displaced, we are all aware that the impact would be considerable. That is why we have sought to discourage the attack and to encourage a negotiated end to the conflict for the benefit of the Yemeni people.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
A negotiated settlement is clearly the only way forward, but what more pressure can be put on Iran, which is fuelling the conflict by supplying missiles and other armaments to the Houthis? If pressure was put on the Iranians, surely we could get some movement towards a settlement.
Alistair Burt
Iran is aware of the international concern about the role it is playing and about some of the areas where it is alleged to be playing a role. That pressure is being applied, and Iran has an opportunity here to demonstrate that it wishes to play a less disruptive role in the region.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones), if the port were taken out of action by an attack, would that be a breach of international humanitarian law?
Alistair Burt
It depends entirely on the circumstances. If deliberate starvation is caused as an act of policy, that is a breach of international humanitarian law. Should the Houthis decide to destroy the port, which they are being driven away from, purely to cause such action, that would probably be such a breach.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister, once again, has said there can be no military solution to this conflict, but would not an attack on Hodeidah mean a military solution is precisely what the coalition is intending to impose, irrespective of the cost in human lives? If he is not able to secure the guarantees he has been seeking on access to Hodeidah and humanitarian supplies, what action will the UK Government take to enforce international law?
Alistair Burt
In an active conflict, one side or the other often believes that, even though a military solution is not possible, military pressure may lead to a negotiated outcome more quickly. This happens in conflicts in many places. I repeat our view that no overall military solution is possible and that negotiation is best.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is of course right to condemn the jihadi Houthis, but will an attack on the port not push them into the city, causing far more deaths? Will the British Government draw a red line under this and ensure that no UK personnel service these weapons?
Alistair Burt
We will continue to discourage such an attack, and we urge the Houthis to take the opportunity for negotiations that is currently available.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
Is it not right that this deeply perilous attack could be avoided if the UN took a more robust stance against the way the Houthis are deliberately squandering aid to starve their own citizens and create a worsening humanitarian crisis?
Alistair Burt
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has knowledge of these things and is prepared to express it. Houthi conduct has been devastating to the people of Yemen. The Houthis have an opportunity to end such a conflict and take part in negotiations for a peaceful future.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm that Iranian naval vessels are supplying the Houthis? Can he also confirm that Hezbollah is also engaged in supporting the activities of the Houthis?
Alistair Burt
I have no direct information to confirm precisely the terms that the hon. Gentleman uses. These allegations have been made, and we are aware that the UN special panel did indicate that missiles used by the Houthis were of Iranian origin.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I cannot recall operations on this scale having previously been conducted by the Saudis or the Emiratis. Given that the excuse often given for civilian casualties is that they have not previously conducted air campaigns, what hope does the Minister have that we will not be in that same disastrous situation after this operation?
Alistair Burt
The hope we have expressed to the coalition is that such an attack does not take place and is discouraged. That has been the consistent position of the UK Government.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
When will the Government realise they will have blood on their hands if they continue to co-operate with the Saudi-led coalition, not least by selling it the arms it is using to kill hundreds and thousands of civilians indiscriminately?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful that this afternoon there have been a number of illustrations of activities by the Houthis that have caused severe damage to the Yemeni population. The House needs to understand there are two sides to this conflict, which is why the coalition has been involved.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As the UN and other non-governmental organisations are leaving the port, how will the UK deliver humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering in the absence of operational partners?
Alistair Burt
The hon. and learned Lady asks a perfectly fair question. If we have information in relation to an attack, our responsibility is plainly to let those who might be affected know. As soon as such a danger has passed, aid agencies will be able to move back. Again, this is another reason why we have sought to discourage such an attack.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The UAE is only one force in the Gulf that is increasing belligerence and destabilisation, but it is a very close ally of this country. Why are the Government not either using their influence with the UAE or reconsidering some of those links and co-operation? They appear to be doing neither at the moment.
Alistair Burt
As I have indicated, we have been in contact with the parties in the coalition over a lengthy period. The Foreign Secretary has been in contact with them this weekend, and it has been our consistent position to seek to discourage the attack on Hodeidah, while understanding what drove the coalition to be involved in the first place, which is to seek to defend the Yemeni people.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
How many British citizens are currently working on aid programmes in Yemen, and what steps are the Government taking to protect them?
Alistair Burt
Very few UK citizens are involved in the aid programmes; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a meeting on that, and they have been given the same information as others on the availability of leaving. Obviously, the circumstances of UK aid workers is a matter of priority, as are those of other aid workers. That is why we issued our warning notice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response. What talks are taking place between all those involved in Yemen’s daily life? Coming from Northern Ireland, I recognise the importance of all sides being engaged in talk-talk, rather than war-war. Where is the peace process?
Alistair Burt
The peace process is in the hands of the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths. Since his appointment in March, he has been working hard to get through to both sides and find a way in which he can put a proposal to them. I understand that he is coming back to the UN Security Council shortly to do just that. It is possible that the events that are currently going on might concentrate minds and assist that process—we earnestly hope so.
G7
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G7 summit in Quebec. The G7 is a forum that allows close allies with shared history and values to discuss issues that affect the security and prosperity of our people, and of the world at large. Discussion at this year’s summit focused on our shared efforts to promote the rules-based international order; to advance free and fair global trade by making the global economy work for everyone; to strive for equal opportunities for all our citizens; and to drive further action to protect the environment, and, in particular, our oceans.
As was clear over the weekend, there was strong debate and disagreement on some issues. But after detailed discussions between both leaders and our teams, we were able to find common ground and draw up a communiqué that reflected those discussions and the agreements we reached. I want to pay a particular tribute to Prime Minister Trudeau for his leadership and skilful chairing, which enabled us, after two days of negotiation between leaders, to agree actions and a shared approach on some of the most pressing challenges facing the international community and our citizens. The United Kingdom fully intends to honour the commitments we have made.
Recent events have underlined the importance of a strong international response to malign state activity. We cannot stand by when international law is undermined, when the security of our citizens is compromised and when foreign interference in our democratic institutions threatens the values and interests that we share. So at this summit we agreed to establish a new rapid response mechanism. As a result, G7 nations will work together to share intelligence, co-ordinate action and develop new strategies to tackle this growing threat. We also agreed that we must maintain the global norm against the use of chemical weapons and that we will strengthen the ability of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks. We all agreed in our discussions and our communiqué that we need to maintain sanctions on Russia, in the light of its failure to fully implement the Minsk agreements in Ukraine, and that we stand ready to take further restrictive measures if necessary.
Turning to trade and the global economy, it is clear that in many of our countries some people feel left behind by globalisation, and not all countries are playing by the rules. We must address that. We need to make the international rules-based trading system work better, so that the benefits of free trade can be felt by all. That includes encouraging the World Trade Organisation to operate more effectively in supporting a global economy that works for everyone. Multilateral action is the right way to achieve this; it cannot be done by taking unilateral action against our partners. So at this summit we expressed deep disappointment at the unjustified decision of the United States to apply tariffs to steel and aluminium imports. The loss of trade through tariffs undermines competition, reduces productivity, removes the incentive to innovate and, ultimately, makes everyone poorer. In response, the EU will impose countermeasures, but we need to avoid a continued tit-for-tat escalation. That is why it was right that we had such an open and direct discussion at this summit and why, as a champion of free trade, the UK will continue to support a constructive dialogue. As long-standing allies, we do not make progress by ignoring each other’s concerns; rather, we do so by addressing them together.
Turning to equality, there was a special session at this summit focused on empowering and supporting women and girls around the world. Efforts to tackle global poverty are fundamentally undermined for as long as millions of girls are not getting the education they deserve, so at this summit the United Kingdom announced £187 million of new funding to support over 400,000 girls in developing countries in getting 12 years of quality education.
We also called for new action to prevent gender-based violence, abuse and harassment online. Women and girls must be able to use the internet without fear of being subjected to online rape threats, harassment, cyber-stalking, blackmail and more.
Following the UK’s call for action last year, tech companies have made real advances in tackling online terrorist propaganda, so in Canada I called for this work to be extended to end the abuse targeted specifically at women and girls. We committed in particular to new joint working on stopping the internet being used to facilitate people trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
Finally, on World Oceans Day, the UK sought to build on the international agreements we reached at the Commonwealth summit in April by calling for a global effort to protect our oceans from avoidable plastic waste. This is one of the great environmental challenges facing the world today. The summit recognised the need for global action, including work with business, industry and non-governmental organisations, to find innovative solutions. The UK is continuing to lead by example at home through our 25-year environment plan, and on Friday we proposed to extend the blue belt protecting sea life around the English coast with a further 41 new marine conservation zones.
This was a difficult summit with, at times, some very candid discussions, but the conclusion I draw is that it is only through continued dialogue that we can find ways to work together to resolve the challenges we face. The countries round the G7 table have been pillars of the rules-based international order, which has benefited all our citizens and, I believe, the world as a whole. The United Kingdom, with our allies and partners, will continue to play our part in promoting that order to the benefit of all. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement. In her last couple of sentences, she almost gave us an inkling of the atmosphere there must have been at the summit. We could do with more.
The G7 meeting can only be described as a failure, and the blame for that lies with the current incumbent of the White House. In the past, the G7 has played a positive role in responding to the global financial crisis, and indeed in pushing forward the millennium development goals and now the sustainable development goals. The problem facing leaders is that the White House is inhabited by a President committed to his slogan, “America first”. That has meant a dismantling of multilateral agreements, pulling out of the Paris climate change accords, the destabilisation of the Iran nuclear deal and now the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminium.
Attempts by G7 leaders, including President Macron and the Prime Minister, to engage with President Trump have resulted in no discernible moderation or deviation from “America first”. In these circumstances, it is clearer than ever that UK policy, whether trade or foreign policy, cannot be outsourced to the US. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the comment of President Trump’s trade adviser that:
“There’s a special place in hell”
for Justin Trudeau?
The use of chemical weapons, whether on the streets of Salisbury or in the cities of Syria, is deplorable, and the perpetrators of these crimes must be held to account under international law. The leaders of France and Germany, and NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, are right to call for continued political dialogue through the NATO-Russia Council. Will the Prime Minister commit to lead on establishing that dialogue at the NATO summit next month?
For European countries, it is vital that unity is maintained, both in support of the Iran nuclear deal and over trade policy. UK jobs are dependent upon our exports, and it is therefore vital that we robustly defend those interests with multilateral agreed action. However, this must not descend into escalating a tit-for-tat trade war, so what steps are the Government taking with our allies to mitigate that threat?
That is not the only threat to our exporting industries and skilled jobs in this country. In the current climate, that puts a particular obligation on each of us in the Chamber as we consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill this week. We must act to guide the Government in negotiations so that our industry, our workers and our communities get the best possible Brexit deal. That concern must be even more acute in the light of the announcement by Jaguar Land Rover that the production of the Discovery model will now happen in Slovakia.
While she was at the G7, did the Prime Minister raise with European leaders the crisis of the Aquarius ship, which the Italian Government refused to allow to dock? I want to put on record my thanks to the Spanish Government and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez for showing humanity in accepting the rescue ship.
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister raised the issue of online abuse and the harassment of women and girls as a global problem, but will she today commit to begin negotiations immediately with political parties in Northern Ireland to bring forward legislation to extend abortion rights and end what the United Nations has denounced as a violation of international human rights standards?
On the environment, the Prime Minister’s wafer-thin so-called national plan fails to match her rhetoric on the global stage. There was nothing to tackle deadly levels of air pollution in our cities or the disgracefully low levels of recycling in this country. We can only ever be taken seriously abroad if we speak from a position of moral authority and respect and without any double standards. I appeal to the Prime Minister again today finally to suspend UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia. With a more unilateral United States Government, it is more important than ever that we work with our allies and that we do so based on social justice, equality and human rights.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, some of which were not on the agenda of the Quebec summit. I will do my best to address the issues that actually were on that agenda.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the environment and the 25-year environment plan here in the United Kingdom. In fact, the United Kingdom is seen throughout the world as a leader on many environmental issues, not least in the work that we have been doing in relation to plastics. I was pleased to get agreement at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting on action that we are taking in relation to clearing our oceans of plastics. It was important that there was agreement from the G7 as well that action should be taken on this issue. As a Commonwealth country, we have a responsibility in this regard. Many small island states in the Commonwealth are already feeling the problems caused by this issue, especially in the impact on their oceans, and it is important that we act on that issue.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the relationship with Russia. As we have discussed, and as I said in my statement, it is important that we recognise the need to maintain sanctions on Russia given that the Minsk agreements have not yet been fully put into place and that we stand ready to take further restrictive measures if necessary. He said that Russia plays a role in Syria. Indeed, Russia does play such a role. What we want to see is that the efforts to bring about a political solution and future stability and security for Syria and the Syrian people come through continuing the United Nations process.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attitude of the United States of America and whether we are working together as allies. We should, of course, look at the recent action that the US has taken in support of the United Kingdom. It expelled a number of Russian diplomats in solidarity with us after the Salisbury incident, as indeed did other countries around the world. The Americans have recently taken action on Russia by imposing more sanctions.
What is important is that we are able to sit down and talk about these issues together, share the information that we need to share and determine the way forward. On the steel and aluminium tariffs, I was very clear—I have been clear directly to President Trump and I have been clear in this House and elsewhere—that they are unjustified, and the European Union will take countermeasures on them. We want to ensure that we can get a dialogue going forward so that we do not simply see a continuous tit-for-tat escalation on these measures, because that is in the interests of nobody. We will be playing our part, as we have done already, in discussions with others around the European Council table to ensure that the EU is able to take the right proportionate action in line with the World Trade Organisation rules. Of course, the EU is taking a case at the WTO on this very issue.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of trade, saying that this country depends on exports. Well, of course we are an exporting country. I want to see more companies around the United Kingdom exporting. The Department for International Trade and the Secretary of State are doing excellent work in increasing the number of companies that are exporting around the world. But if we are going to export around the world, we need to be able to ensure that we are negotiating trade deals with other countries and that we negotiate a good trade deal with the European Union, but that we are free to negotiate the trade deals that are in our interests.
The right hon. Gentleman may stand up here and talk about the importance of exports, but it is of course the Labour party’s policy to put the United Kingdom into a relationship with the European Union that would mean that, without being a member of the EU, we would hand over the negotiation of trade deals to the EU. That would certainly not be in our interests.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does not last week’s summit sadly demonstrate that President Trump has little or no time for multilateral meetings or multilateral agreements, and no time at all for the WTO and its rules, and that he wants to take steps that he hopes will force rich and developed countries like ours to export less to the United States and to import more from politically-sensitive sectors of the American economy? Does not the Prime Minister reflect on last week’s unfortunate events and think about when she negotiates in Europe? Although things are going to change when we leave the European Union, does she not think that we must keep frictionless trade and as many qualities of a single market, customs union and totally free trade as we possibly can, because we are probably going to need it more in the near future than we have in the past?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, we have set out very clearly the objectives we have for our future customs arrangements with the European Union, which indeed reflect having as frictionless trade as possible, alongside being able to negotiate our own trade deals with an independent trade policy and having no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. As we leave the European Union, we want to ensure that we have a good trading relationship with the EU, but we also want to have an independent trade policy that enables us to negotiate trade deals around the rest of the world.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement.
I will start by congratulating all those who marched yesterday in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London to celebrate 100 years of the women’s vote. It is very fitting that the G7 had such a strong focus on advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment. The Scottish National party strongly welcomes the Charlevoix declarations on increasing safe and quality education for all girls, particularly in conflict-affected and fragile states, and further declarations on resolving to end all forms of sexual and gender-based violence.
It is of course right that the summit shone a light into some of the most hostile conflict zones around the world. SNP Members fully support the urgent call to address the dire and deteriorating situation in the Gaza strip. The urgency could not be more apparent, as the UN has been clear that the Gaza strip will be uninhabitable by 2020.
On matters of the global economy, the G7 sought to invest in growth for all. Underlining the role of rules-based international trading systems and continuing to fight protectionism drew a wall of intransigence from the President of the United States. The summit may have been a diplomatic disaster, but in an increasingly fractured world the co-operation of world leaders is essential if we are to strive for peace and prosperity.
Before going to Ottawa, the Prime Minister was pushed around by her hard Brexit supporting Ministers; some might say that she was Trumped. The looming trade war with the US demonstrates the weakness in the so-called special relationship, and I associate my remarks with the observation made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Does not the Prime Minister agree, following the chaotic summit she attended at the weekend, that her Brexiteer sidekicks’ belief that this Government can secure a trade deal with the US post Brexit is simply delusional?
The Prime Minister
First, I add my congratulations to those of the right hon. Gentleman to all those who took action to recognise the 100 years’ anniversary of women getting the vote. This is a very good year for women in politics. We should continue to recognise that anniversary.
There was indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a focus at the Charlevoix summit on the question of gender equality and women’s empowerment. As he said, there was the important declaration on increasing opportunities for at least 12 years of safe and quality education for all, and to dismantling the barriers to girls’ and women’s quality education, particularly in emergencies and in conflict-affected and fragile states. We also recognised that marginalised girls, such as those with disability, face additional barriers in maintaining access to education. That was an important commitment from all those around the table.
The right hon. Gentleman ended up by talking about trade deals and the possibility of a trade deal with the United States of America. We have committed, when we have an independent trade policy, to ensuring that we are able to put in place trade deals around the rest of the world. The United States has been speaking to us about the possibility of such a trade deal. Of course, when we negotiate with the United States, or indeed any other country around the world, we will be ensuring that we negotiate in the interests of the United Kingdom. But we do believe that that free trade—those open markets—is the best way to bring prosperity, to bring jobs, to encourage competition, to increase productivity, and to encourage innovation, which, at the end of the day, is what advances medicine and advances people’s lives in so many different ways. We will be looking forward, as I say, to making sure that we do trade deals that are firmly in the interests of this country.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that global free trade has been the single biggest reason why poverty around the globe has fallen so dramatically over the past few years, and that the UK, as an exponent of free trade, stands on that position and wants to advance it? So apart from the particular place in hell that Mr Trudeau apparently must occupy, did she hear, as I saw in a report today, that the American delegation maintain that they offered unilateral free trade to all the G7, but that this was rebuffed? Does she recall that particular conversation?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that free trade is one of the best ways of ensuring that developing countries are able to move themselves out of poverty and improve the lot of their populations, and it is very important that we continue to advocate it. There was a discussion about the possibility of completely open and free trade, but open, free and fair trade. That means not just tariff-free but also dismantling barriers to trade. It also means ensuring that there are no anti-competitive, unfair subsidies.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
With bitter divisions on trade and the imposition of tariffs by the US that are indeed undermining the international rules-based order of which the Prime Minister spoke, what impact does she think this will have on the timing and the content of any trade deal with the United States of America, bearing in mind that the backstop proposal she published last week for Northern Ireland will mean that we are going to be remaining in a customs union with the European Union until the end of 2021, and possibly for longer?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the timing of trade deals with America, or indeed with any other country, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that we are not able to put those in place until we have fully left the European Union. We will be able to talk about these issues—to sign and negotiate those treaties—in advance of that.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the backstop. The point of the backstop is that it is there if, as at 1 January 2021, the future customs arrangement between the United Kingdom and the European Union is not in place. As I said last week, it has always been the case that we believe that the best way to address the issue of the border in Northern Ireland is through that overall relationship between the UK and the EU. We want to ensure that that is in place as soon as possible after the end of December 2020, and we preferably do not want to see the backstop having to be used at all.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Given that it is nearly four years since 10 British citizens were murdered when flight MH17 was destroyed over Ukraine by a Russian missile launcher and the west is still trying to refute Russian denials of responsibility, can the Prime Minister tell the House how the very welcome rapid response mechanism agreed in Quebec will help us to better challenge Russian misinformation with much faster truth?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. The point of the rapid response mechanism is that it will be able to do that in two ways. First, one of the key things is to have faster attribution when these events happen; of course, we have only relatively recently seen a final attribution in relation to the Russian role in MH17. It is about being able to work together to achieve faster attribution when incidents happen and then—this is the crucial point—to co-ordinate activity to counter exactly the propaganda that he mentions. Working collectively will have a much greater impact than individual states trying to work on their own.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
What is the point of the G7? Since the most important member does not believe in a rules-based system and crucial countries such as China and India are not even members of it, why does the Prime Minister not recommend closing it down?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks what the point of the G7 is. He should look at the communiqué to see the agreed actions that we will be putting in place, which will be of benefit across areas relating not just to trade and foreign policy but the empowerment of women and girls.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on her resolve at the G7 in standing up for women’s rights, the environment, free trade and the international rules-based order, but given events there, what appraisal has she made of President Trump’s likely approach to trade deals with the United Kingdom after Britain leaves the European Union?
The Prime Minister
The President of the United States has always made it clear that he is keen to be able to sit down and talk with the UK about a future trade deal. We are also clear that we want to ensure that we have a trade deal that works for the United Kingdom, but let us not forget that we already have a good trading and investment relationship with the US. Every working day, 1 million people in the United Kingdom wake up and go to work for an American company, and 1 million people in the United States wake up and go to work for a British company.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
How did the Prime Minister personally respond to Trump’s call for Putin to be let back into the G7? Given yesterday’s revelations, is it not now time for a full police inquiry into the relationship between the Kremlin and the leave campaign in the EU referendum?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks about a police inquiry, which of course is a matter for the police, and the body responsible for looking at elections and the democratic process is the Electoral Commission. He asks about the comments made by President Trump on the G7 versus the G8. There was a good reason why the G8 became the G7—Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea—and the response I have given both in private and in public is that any conversations about whether or not Russia could come back round the table cannot take place until Russia has changed its attitude.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly support the Prime Minister’s wish to be a leader of free trade worldwide. Do we not need to get our vote and voice back at the WTO as soon as possible and leave the customs union in order to do that?
The Prime Minister
I assure my right hon. Friend that we are indeed working on establishing ourselves as an independent member of the WTO at the point at which it will be possible to become one, having left the European Union.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree that never since the war has the international rules-based system been more at risk following the outcome of the G7 summit and particularly President Trump’s behaviour, with his tweet deck on Air Force One after he left? How does she think we can shore up the international rules-based system? All of us who study history know what the consequences of its collapse may be.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady refers to the international rules-based order. That can be looked at in a variety of ways. If we take an issue such as the norms that we all accept or have been accepting on chemical weapons, there is absolutely no doubt about the strength of support there is for action to ensure that those international norms and that rules-based order are maintained. As we say in the communiqué, we recognise in areas like trade that the World Trade Organisation needs reform. Its dispute resolution mechanisms are very slow, and we need to work to ensure that it provides frameworks for not just the economies of the past but the economies of the future—in digitisation and services, for example.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the building of the international order, which has enriched us all in the freedoms that we now have, has been paid for not just with the industry of American and British diplomats, but with the lives of the soldiers given in wars and conflicts to protect the freedoms that we enjoy? Does she agree that protecting, defending and, indeed, expanding that order is not only in our interests, but in the interests of all free peoples, including the United States?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that we as politicians stand and talk about the values that we share, but it is our servicemen and women who actually put their lives on the line to defend those values. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that we are doing them the service of working together to maintain that rules-based international order.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that the WTO needs reform, and she also said earlier that we were in the lead on climate change and the environment. Will she look at integrating these two institutional networks so that we do not have trade deals that cut across our environmental objectives?
The Prime Minister
I am not sure that integrating the two institutional structures that deal with those is the right way forward, but there are of course examples around the world where trade deals do indeed incorporate environmental standards.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
An initiative at the G7 that we can all welcome is the extra £2 billion pledge to educate some of the poorest women and children in the world. Unfortunately, after such international conferences, quite often, the money does not follow the pledge. Will my right hon. Friend commit to doing everything in her power and commit the British Government to making sure that people pay up and that that fund is properly administered—probably through the Department for International Development, which has the best international network—in order to deliver this much needed education in some of the poorest and hardest-to-reach countries in the world?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree that it is important that this is not just words or words on paper, but money that actually follows through. Of course, the United Kingdom has a very good record on that and we will be doing everything we can to ensure that this money does follow through. It is for a very important objective that is in the interests of us all.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister worry that there is a growing trend towards protectionism in the world, as we saw this weekend? In 2010, there were just 300 non-tariff protectionist measures in G20 countries but, in 2015, there were 1,200. How are we really going to make sure that we, as a country that relies on free and fair trade, can prosper if that protectionism grows?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to be wary of any seeming approaches taken around the world that increase protectionism or that increase the likelihood of protectionism being adopted. When people talk about trade, there tends always to be a focus on tariffs, but of course free trade depends on a great deal more than tariffs. It depends on having similar systems that ensure that there is not unfair competition and that abilities to reduce tariffs are not simply replaced by the sort of barriers to trade that he talks about. As an independent member of the WTO, we will of course be able to play our part in trying to ensure that we row back any attempt at protectionism.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am sorry to break the cosy consensus, but has not President Trump got a point to the extent that free trade, like all these theories, depends on some level of equivalence and fair dealing, yet China, with its unlimited population, is rapidly building massive trade surpluses with the rest of the world and draining other economies dry? Given that its secretive Government have proved utterly impervious to previous pressure, perhaps history will prove that there is some method in President Trump’s madness.
The Prime Minister
We have absolutely no doubt that there is a need to ensure that everybody is playing within the rules-based international order. Obviously, we have spoken in this House and elsewhere in particular about the overcapacity in steel and the role that China has played in that. That is why I was pleased, at the first G20 I went to, that the global forum on steel excess capacity was set up, with China as a member of that forum. As we committed to in the communiqué, we have called on the members of that forum to implement its recommendations fully and promptly, and we need to say that we must bring those countries that are emerging and perhaps not playing fully by the rules of the international rules-based order, into that order. I am pleased to say that we also in the communiqué committed to continue to fight protectionism.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Prime Minister agree that all of us who believe in international peace, prosperity and security—and hope that they will continue—want the G7 and other global international institutions to prosper? But are not her Government, just like the Trump Government, not trusted any longer in partnerships, in the European Union, in NATO or in the G7, because they are driven by an inability to play fair in partnerships?
The Prime Minister
Nothing is further from the truth. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the international coalition that supported the United Kingdom in response to what Russia did on the streets of Salisbury in the nerve agent attack.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Might the prospects for consensus have been better had not leaders previously, and so publicly, announced their intention to undermine US policy on Iran?
The Prime Minister
The United States has chosen to reimpose sanctions on Iran and therefore to pull out of the joint comprehensive plan of action—the Iran nuclear deal. We have worked with France and Germany because we continue to believe that, as long as Iran meets its obligations under that deal, it is important to maintain that deal. But we accept—and have been working with those countries, the United States and others—that more needs to be done in relation to Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its destabilising activity in the region. We will continue to work with all partners who want, like us, to ensure that we can take some action to reduce that destabilising activity.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The international rules-based order of which the Prime Minister speaks is under attack from the rise of nationalism in various parts of the world. What does she think about its strength when the President of the United States can call for the readmission of Russia to the G8 just weeks after Russia has used a nerve agent to try to kill people on the streets of the United Kingdom? Even if we do not have the United States as a partner in this endeavour, will she commit the UK Government to working as closely as possible with other like-minded allies to uphold that order?
The Prime Minister
I responded earlier to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on the issue of whether Russia should be sitting around the G7 table and we should go back to the G8. On the point that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) makes about the United States and its approach to Russia and the nerve agent attack that took place on the streets of Salisbury, I remind him—as I mentioned earlier—that the United States, together with other international allies, expelled Russian diplomats following the attack. Those allies took action, as we did, to recognise what happened in Salisbury. They have also subsequently introduced tougher sanctions on Russia, which have been having an impact on certain individuals in Russia. We continue to work with our allies and others to ensure that we are dealing with the malign state activity that is being undertaken by Russia and others.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for defending free trade and the rule of law, and for championing the need to remove plastic from the world’s oceans. What plans does she have to ensure that commitments made by countries are more binding and that real and urgent action is achieved?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. First, we have to set an example ourselves, as we have done in the past and will continue to do through the work we are doing on issues such as plastic straws and cotton buds. It is also the case that we can work with other like-minded countries, not just in the G7 but across the Commonwealth, to ensure that they are working with us to take the action necessary. It is widely recognised—this point was emphasised by the Secretary General of the United Nations at the summit—that this is a key issue and a major environmental challenge across our world, and we all need to work together to address it.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister think that the special relationship is stronger or weaker with President Trump in the White House?
The Prime Minister
The special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States continues to be strong. It will endure and continue to be strong. The nature of the relationship is such that when we disagree with the United States and the President we are able to tell him.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
In the light of the Prime Minister’s discussions at the G7, does she agree that now is not the time to weaken sanctions against Russia? In fact, there is a very strong argument that we should be co-operating with other international partners to strengthen sanctions against Russia to make sure that pressure continues to be applied on Putin to conform to the rules-based international order.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The communiqué committed to maintaining sanctions against Russia in relation to the fact that the Minsk agreements have not been fully implemented. That discussion will come up at the June European Council, too. As we made clear at the G7, we stand ready to take further restrictive measures if necessary.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The communiqué includes a pledge to:
“coordinate efforts to build lasting peace and support democratic transition in Myanmar”.
As the first monsoon rains hit the camps in which the displaced Rohingya people are living, will the Prime Minister say what her Government are doing to ensure that that pledge is not just words?
The Prime Minister
The United Kingdom Government are taking a number of actions. We are providing real support for the refugees in the camps. We are providing real support to Bangladesh to be able to provide for those people. We continue to work and will continue to press the Myanmar Government to create a situation in which the refugees are able to return to their former homes in safety and security—that is the key issue. It is not just about people being able to return home; it is about being able to ensure that, when they do so, they have the confidence of knowing they will be safe and secure.
The Prime Minister
I am not sure what activity my hon. Friend is asking me to undertake with either. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Moreover, if one were being really pedantic one would have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s question did not contain a main verb.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It’s certainly not “Love Island”, is it Mr Speaker?
The G7 summit was a fiasco rescued only by our EU allies and friends who filled the vacuum of leadership created by President Trump’s tweets. Does his abandonment of the international rules-based trading system not reveal how important it is for us to stay in a customs union and in the European single market, not least for the environmental and social protections that any bilateral trade deals with third countries receive?
The Prime Minister
If we were in a customs union, we would not be able to negotiate our own trade deals and we would not be able to have an independent trade policy. We want to have that independent trade policy, so that we can negotiate trade deals around the rest of the world in our own interests. If we were in a customs union, we would be giving responsibility for our future trade deals to Brussels while not being a member of the European Union. That would mean it would have no incentive at all to negotiate trade deals in our interests. We need to have that independent trade policy and that means being outside a customs union.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to investing in women and girls and to keeping them safe online. This issue concerns us all deeply because women suffer disproportionately when they go online. Will she update the House on this ambition?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to do so. In the United Kingdom, we are committed to doing more on this issue. As I said in my statement, we have already had some success in working with tech companies on other issues and look to do so on this issue. There is a commitment from the wider G7 that this is something to be addressed. We take a simple position that, if an activity is wrong offline, it is wrong online. We need to ensure that that is being enforced.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Prime Minister disappointed or relieved that President Trump did not have time for a bilateral meeting with her?
The Prime Minister
I had actually had quite a lengthy conversation with President Trump earlier in the week, and I had a number of conversations with him at the G7 on a range of issues.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
It seems to be clouded that a great deal of constructive work came out of the G7 meeting—not least the work on reducing plastics in the oceans worldwide and on women’s education. Is it not right that if we really are to tackle those issues, we need to do it jointly with the other members of the G7?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we in the UK look at those issues and take our own actions, but the impact is likely to be much greater when we are able to work jointly and co-operatively with others to ensure that, around the world, we are addressing these issues. That is exactly what the G7 communiqué committed us to do.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The overwhelming majority of people in this House will welcome the overwhelming majority in the G7 agreeing not to let Russia back to the top table, but Russia is now seeking to exert its influence through the back door, and we learnt about the scale of that over the weekend. The Prime Minister says that it is an Electoral Commission inquiry, but the Electoral Commission does not have the legal power to summon the information that it needs. If she can set up a rapid action taskforce abroad, why can we not have a rapid action taskforce here at home? Why can we not put the Electoral Commission on it along with the Metropolitan police, because that is the only way we will find out whether Arron Banks’ millions were in fact Moscow gold?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier in response to a question, of course if there is a suggestion of criminal activity, it will be a matter for the police as to any investigation that would be undertaken. The question whether or not electoral laws have been met is of course a matter for the Electoral Commission, but as the right hon. Gentleman might recall, from the police’s point of view, they have operational independence, and it is not for politicians to tell the police what to investigate.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Prime Minister referred in her statement to malign state influence. Presumably, that would include Russia shooting down flight MH17, invading a neighbouring country, sponsoring its client state to commit a chemical attack and interfering in foreign elections. Does the Prime Minister intend at the European Council at the end of June to press our European partners to strengthen and expand the range of economic sanctions that we have imposed against Russia?
The Prime Minister
I have already raised with European partners whether the European Council in June should look not just to the question of the sanctions in relation to the Crimea and Minsk agreements, but also to whether we should look further. Indeed, there are some issues that have arisen in relation to Crimea where I think that we should be looking at whether some further sanctions are required.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government’s own impact assessments confirm that even the biggest and boldest trade deal with the US would add between only 0.1% and 0.3% of gross value added to our economy. Have these figures been revisited since the G7 and the imposition of tariffs? How far now do the Government believe that a free trade deal with the US would go towards offsetting the between 2% and 8% loss of GVA associated with any of the likely relationships that we might have with the EU in future?
The Prime Minister
We are intending to negotiate. We have started talking about and negotiating a trade deal with the European Union that is good for us here in the UK—I think that it will also be good for the European Union—and ensures that we are able to continue to trade well with the European Union. We do not talk about a trade deal with America or any other country around the world replacing an ability to trade on a good basis with the European Union. It is in addition to being able to trade on a good basis with the European Union.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the education, empowerment and emancipation of women, particularly in developing countries, is a skeleton key that unlocks both social and economic development? Will she ensure that, despite whatever else is pressing at the time, we do not let this most important of agenda items slip down the priority list of the G7?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The question of ensuring that women have those opportunities and that gender equality is in place is right in itself, but it is also important for economies, because there would be a significant boost to economies if women were able to play the same sort of role, in terms of businesses that they are setting up and so forth, as the male part of the population. I can assure him that President Macron, who will be hosting the G7 next year, committed at the summit in Quebec to taking this agenda item—the empowerment of women and gender equality—through to the G7 in France next year.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister share my concern that the good work she described coming out of the G7 seems deliberately to be having the shine taken off it by President Trump and his tweets—insisting that it should be a G8 and pushing on with his tariffs—and his general inability to play by the collective rules? Or are blond buffoons who seek to undermine her at every turn now becoming the norm?
The Prime Minister
G7 leaders signed up to a number of actions in the communiqué. We will ensure that we abide by them, and I expect others to do the same.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Given that the number of new jobs and livelihoods needed globally for young people by 2030 is estimated to be at least 1 billion, did the G7 have the opportunity to discuss how these jobs and livelihoods will be created? In particular, did it discuss the investment—not just free trade, which is vital—that makes free trade possible?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As one of our early discussions, we were able to have a more general discussion about employment, the future of the world of work, the sort of developments that should take place and how we work to ensure, for example, that as artificial intelligence increasingly comes into the world of work, we can retrain and reskill people to take the jobs of the future. Many people fear that AI will just mean job losses. We need to ensure that alternative jobs are available and that people are trained and up-skilled to take them.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Prime Minister look carefully at my Plastics Bill, published today, which says that plastic producers, instead of council tax payers, should pay for recycling, that all plastics should be recyclable by 2025 and that we should introduce a levy on plastic bottles, alongside a refill system, so that, instead of paying £1 for two bottles and throwing them away, consumers pay 65p for one and refill it in a local shop?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has set out several ideas there. I can assure him that we are considering ways to increase the ability to deal with this issue of plastics, including working with industry to ensure that the plastics it produces are all recyclable. That is what we want. Working with industry and creating opportunities for new developments are also an important part of this.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
President Trump’s decision to impose steel and aluminium tariffs is obviously deeply concerning for my constituents and British Steel at Skinningrove. We all deplore them, but as my right hon. Friend has said, we need to work constructively to get them overturned. With that in mind, can she give further details to the House about the precise nature of her discussions with the President on getting them lifted?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the UK has been affected by tariffs imposed on the European Union, and we discussed how further dialogue could take place between the EU and the United States to avoid an escalatory tit for tat on tariffs. It is through that dialogue that it will be possible to address the issue of tariffs on steel and aluminium.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
What does the Prime Minister think it says to our European neighbours when the Foreign Secretary advocates behaving like Donald Trump in the Brexit negotiations? Does it present a good face for Britain in our future dealings with the European Union?
The Prime Minister
What presents a good face for our future dealings with the EU is this Government setting out very clearly, as we have done at every stage of the negotiations, the sort of future relationship we want with the EU.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I welcome the £187 million allocated to support girls’ education in developing countries, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do whatever we can to ensure that girls have the same opportunities as boys and that both girls and boys in developing countries get improved opportunities?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to ensure that girls are not sidelined in terms of education and opportunities, which is why the funding for girls’ education—for 12 years of safe and quality education, as we have expressed it—is important. We do also need, however, to increase opportunities for all in developing countries, which is why things such as the jobs compact we have entered into with Ethiopia are important. Such action can help countries to develop their economies and make those jobs available for both men and women.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has talked about the communiqué, which has many laudable objectives, but I still want her to clarify what she regards as its status following President Trump’s tweets. Is it now a G6 communiqué?
The Prime Minister
The communiqué was signed up to by all the G7 leaders. As I have said, the UK will abide by its commitments, and we expect others to do so as well.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
These US tariffs must be met with a fitting response. What action can the British Government take to ensure that the EU response is calibrated and proportionate and does not lead to damaging escalation?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has been in discussion with the United States, but also with the Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, in the European Union, and I am of course talking to other European leaders. We want to ensure that the action taken is proportionate and within the WTO rules when those countermeasures are put in place.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has referred to the empowerment of women and of girls in particular. Did she have an opportunity at the G7 to raise two specific issues: the hundreds of thousands of child prostitutes in India and the use of rape as a method of violence in places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
The Prime Minister
The specific examples given by the hon. Gentleman were not raised, but the overall issue of the prevention of sexual violence in conflict was referred to in the meeting between the G7 leaders and the Gender Equality Advisory Council, which was set up by Prime Minister Trudeau. I was also able, within that, to talk about the issues of human trafficking and modern slavery, particularly modern slavery for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Paragraph 20 of the communiqué states:
“We…call upon Iran to play a constructive role”
for
“peace in the region.”
The same statement was made at the 2015 G7. Iran has continuously displayed aggressive behaviour in the region, and Morocco has now expelled its ambassador. The Prime Minister has spoken of appropriate action and has said that “some action” will be taken to stop Iran’s destabilising activity. What does she mean by “some action”, and what is her timeline for taking that action?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: paragraph 20 of the communiqué does refer to Iran. It also states:
“we call upon Iran to refrain from launches of ballistic missiles and all other activities… inconsistent with UNSCR 2231—including all annexes”.
That, of course, refers to the joint comprehensive plan of action. We also—as my hon. Friend said—call on Iran to
“cease proliferation of missile technology”
and action it is taking that is
“destabilising for the region”.
We will work with our European allies and others on a wide variety of issues relating to Iran, and we will make every effort to bring Iran to a situation in which it is not interfering in other states in the way that we know it is at the moment.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Since 1949, every President of the United States bar one has supported greater economic solidarity as a bulwark against threats from the east and to dampen the far right and the far left. Reflecting on the summit and on future trade deals, does the Prime Minister believe that the President of the United States is a man with whom they can do a deal, or is he sacrificing the inheritance left to us by Presidents from Eisenhower to Obama for mid-term votes for the Grand Old party?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman and a number of others have raised the possibility of the United Kingdom’s being able to do a trade deal with the United States. The United States has made clear that it wants to talk to us about such a deal, but, as I have made clear as well, we already have a good trading and investment relationship with the United States. We want to bring more jobs and prosperity into the United Kingdom, and any trade deals that we sign up to will be in our interests.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
We must leave our rivers and oceans in a better condition for the next generation. Will my right hon. Friend continue to work with international partners to ensure that the high domestic standards that we are developing are reflected internationally?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give that commitment. When I was in China earlier this year, I was pleased to be able to visit Wuhan and look at some of the work that was being done to try to clear up the Yangtze river, which is, of course, a key source of the plastics that go into our oceans. We will continue to work with others internationally to ensure that we can address the issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and in particular her comments on education for all, especially young girls. Many churches in my constituency and missions across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are focused on medical and education provision especially in African countries. What help can we give those churches and missions?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: many organisations are providing that medical and education support for young girls, and I will refer his remarks to the International Development Secretary to look at the issue he has raised.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Multilateralism is vital for the global economy and particularly vital in dealing with the technology giants. Does the Prime Minister agree that, while this is a partnership, it is ultimately for Governments around the world to decide what is illegal and for those companies to comply with that legislation?
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely right: Governments decide what is legal and what is legitimate activity, and companies are then expected to comply with that and should do so. In a number of areas, we have been able to achieve results through voluntary action by the tech companies and we will continue to pursue that, but we have been very clear that they should comply with any current and future legislation.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm her Government’s commitment to support UK steelmakers and steelworkers by persistently and robustly defending the industry against these 25% tariffs and ensuring there is no surge of steel imports into Europe?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have taken a number of measures already over the years to try to help the United Kingdom steel industry. It is important to us that the industry can develop, and we will continue to robustly defend it in a number of ways. We will be working with others in the EU to ensure we can deal with the US tariffs, and what we want of course is an exemption and removal of those tariffs in the future.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for new action to prevent gender-based violence, abuse and harassment online, and I heard the answer she gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones), but may I press her to take every future opportunity to raise the important initiative that the UK has led globally to prevent, and prosecute those guilty of, sexual violence in conflict?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the UK has been a leader in that. My noble and right hon. Friend Lord Hague did a great deal as Foreign Secretary to put that programme in place and we can be justifiably proud of it, but we do need to keep the foot on the accelerator.
Grenfell Tower
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower fire, meeting our commitment to update the House following the Opposition day debate on 16 May. I am also writing to the Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government to provide a formal report on progress, a copy of which will be placed in the House Library.
As we mark a year since the tragedy, this will be an extremely painful time for the community. Many hon. Members provided powerful and poignant contributions in the e-petition and Opposition day debates last month, and I know that the whole House will join me in sending the bereaved and survivors our love and prayers.
On 14 June 2017 we saw the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war: 71 people lost their lives on the night of the fire, and a former tower resident who was rescued from the 19th floor passed away earlier this year. The start of the public inquiry was a timely reminder of that terrible human cost: a baby who never lived to learn how much he was loved; three generations of family wiped out; heroes who died saving others. Nobody could fail to be moved by the extraordinary tributes paid by family and friends to the loved ones they lost—by their courage and dignity in the face of unimaginable loss, and, yes, by their anger too. A catastrophe of this kind should never have happened in the UK in 2017, and when it did the initial response was not good enough. Nothing could undo the anguish and devastation this has caused, but as the Prime Minister said, we can and must do right by the memory of those who lost their lives and those left behind, by supporting those affected, securing justice and, above all, ensuring that nothing like this can ever happen again.
There has been an unprecedented effort across Government and our public services. Help is being provided on a range of issues from advice on benefits to emotional and mental health support. In total, we have spent more than £46 million of national Government funds and committed a further £34 million to help meet rehousing costs, deliver new mental health services and deliver improvements to the Lancaster West estate. The appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) as Grenfell victims Minister has helped to ensure that the voices of those affected inform the response, and we set up the independent Grenfell recovery taskforce to help and challenge the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to provide better support for residents and rebuild trust. I want to thank everyone for their tireless support, particularly the emergency services and the public and voluntary sectors.
Clearly, one of the most pressing issues has been rehousing those who lost their homes. A large-scale programme of investment work has been under way to ensure that the homes are of good quality and personalised to meet the needs of families. The council has acquired more than 300 homes in and around the borough. A total of 203 households needed new homes, and 198 have accepted permanent or temporary accommodation. That means that all but five households have accepted offers, and 134 have now moved in. Most of the work to ensure that all the homes that have been accepted are ready to move into is complete, and we expect many of the remaining properties to be ready in the coming weeks. While those households are preparing to move, the council has ensured that they have all had the option to move into more suitable accommodation.
I remain concerned, however, about the 43 households who are living in hotels. My ministerial team has met many of them, and I have personally written to all of them to find out what barriers exist in each individual case and how we can overcome them. This is not where any of us wanted to be a year on from the fire. There has been progress in recent weeks, but overall the pace has been too slow. My Department and the independent taskforce are continuing to provide scrutiny and challenge to the council, and we have provided additional resources directly to the council to help to speed up this work. We will not rest until everyone is settled into a new home.
Those affected also badly need answers and to see justice done. The Grenfell Tower inquiry and Metropolitan police investigations will ensure that this happens, but we must also learn from what has happened. Over the past year, my Department has been working closely with fire and rescue services, local authorities and landlords to ensure that other buildings like Grenfell Tower are safe. Remediation work has started on two thirds of buildings in the social housing sector. Also, the Prime Minister announced last month that the Government will fully fund the removal and replacement of potentially dangerous aluminium composite material cladding on buildings over 18 metres high owned by social landlords, with costs estimated at £400 million, and we have made it clear that we expect building owners in the private sector not to pass costs on to leaseholders. To that end, I recently met leaseholders and put their concerns to industry representatives at a number of roundtables. Some in the sector, such as Barratt Developments, Legal & General and Taylor Wimpey, are doing the right thing and taking responsibility. I urge all others to follow. Those in the private sector must step up, and I am not ruling anything out if they do not do so.
In addition, I recently welcomed Dame Judith Hackitt’s final, comprehensive report following her independent review of building regulations and fire safety. In response, I committed to bringing forward legislation to reform the system of fire safety and give residents a stronger voice. Having listened carefully to concerns, the Government intend to ban the use of combustible materials on the external walls of high-rise residential buildings, subject to consultation. We will publish the consultation next week. It is essential that people living in buildings like Grenfell Tower not only are safe but feel that the state understands their lives and works for them. There is no question but that their faith in that has been shaken. That is why, as well as strengthening building and fire safety, we will be publishing a social housing Green Paper by the recess. I am confident that these measures will help us to rebuild public trust and deliver the meaningful, lasting change that is needed.
Our country has seen many difficult times, but that night at Grenfell Tower was one of our darkest hours. We will never forget those who died. We will not falter in our support for those who are still grieving, or flag in our determination to ensure that no community has to go through such agonies again. In doing this, we can be inspired by the incredible spirit of the people of north Kensington and the way they have come together. And when we say never again, we mean it. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for honouring his commitment to make this statement following our Opposition day debate and for giving me early sight of it this afternoon.
In this anniversary week, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives through the Grenfell Tower fire, and we will not forget our special duty as Members of Parliament to do right by them and by those who survive them.
Directly after this national disaster, the Prime Minister was right to make the first statement to the House herself, and she had the whole House with her when she pledged that Grenfell residents would have all the help and new homes they needed and that every necessary step would be taken to stop this ever happening again. Imagine the reaction if the Prime Minister had said instead, “One year on, more than half of Grenfell survivors will still be stuck in hotel rooms or temporary accommodation; more than 300 other tower blocks around the country will have the same Grenfell-style cladding, yet only 10 will have had it removed and replaced; there will be more tower blocks in private hands that have still not been tested; and, astonishingly, the Government will still not know how many high-rise tower blocks there are in the country.” In truth, Ministers have been off the pace and too slow to act at every stage for 12 months, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s admission of that this afternoon. The Government’s response has not been good enough, and it is still not good enough. The time for warm words is long past. More action, not more apologies, is needed now.
On rehousing survivors, Grenfell residents feel that they were failed before the fire, and many feel failed since. They were promised permanent new homes within a year, but only 82 of the 209 households are in permanent new homes. On the wider Grenfell estate, only 39 of 127 are in permanent new homes. The dossier released today by the North Kensington law centre catalogues the defects in the new homes that have been offered, which include damp, delayed repairs and tenancy terms different from those for the homes people lost in the tower. The Secretary of State told the House on 16 May that he was
“establishing at pace what further action could be taken, by the Government or by the council, to speed up this process.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 314.]
However, he has told us nothing more today. What further action is he taking? What deadline has he set for all survivors to be permanently rehoused so that they can begin to rebuild their lives? Without a deadline, more words of regret will simply ring hollow to the still homeless residents of Grenfell Tower.
Turning to the safety of the other high-rise blocks around the country, after 12 months only 10 of more than 300 with the same Grenfell-type cladding have had it replaced, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to
“do whatever it takes to…keep our people safe.”
We welcome the funding for social housing tower blocks, which was pledged under Labour pressure, and we welcome the Secretary of State’s intention to ban combustible material on the outside of high-rise blocks, which was also pledged under pressure.
May I keep up the pressure following the statement this afternoon and persuade the Secretary of State to go further and take the action that is now needed? Will he accept that sprinklers must be retrofitted in high-rise blocks, and will he set up an emergency fire safety fund to help council and housing association landlords with the costs? Will he publish in full the details that the Department holds on the location, ownership, testing status and evacuation policy of all high-rise blocks confirmed unsafe? Will he make it clear to private block owners that they, not residents, have the legal duty to pay for replacing dangerous cladding? Finally, will he strengthen councils’ enforcement powers and sanctions so that they can act when private landlords will not make their buildings safe? That is how we honour the promises made in this House. That is how we ensure that, as the Secretary of State said today, when we say never again, we mean it.
James Brokenshire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. I can say to him that, yes, we are very firmly focused on the outstanding issue of those needing to move into permanent accommodation. Since my last statement to the House, I have been pressing the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and its contractor. It is fair to say that, as I indicated in the initial response, the council had issues with its contracting that meant it needed to replace its contractor. The council has had a new contractor in place for a number of months that is making important progress on ensuring standards are met in respect of accommodation for those needing to be rehoused and that, actually, there is a firm element of personalisation in that accommodation to ensure that, when residents move in, they can see the care, thought and attention that has been put into the accommodation to make it a home and so that they can feel stability and safety in those new homes.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of other points in respect of high-rise blocks and the various steps that have been taken over the course of this year. I point him to Dame Judith Hackitt’s comprehensive report on building safety, which gives a real sense of this Government’s commitment to making sustained change on building safety, and, equally, to my decision to go further in respect of banning combustible cladding and to the consultation I will launch next week.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about mandating sprinklers, and I underline to him that, since 2007, building regulations guidance has stated that all new high-rise residential buildings over 30 metres must have sprinklers. Sprinklers can be an effective safety measure, but they are one of many such measures that could be adopted. As Dame Judith Hackitt points out in her report, no single fire safety measure, including sprinklers, can be seen as a panacea.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to provide details on the list of properties, which is something he has raised before, and there are particular safety concerns around that. In respect of his point on private owners, if he listened to what I have said he would know that I have stated on a number of occasions a very clear message on the responsibility of private owners, and I have underlined to a number of building owners and developers their responsibilities and the need to take action. We have also ensured that local authorities have the appropriate powers to investigate further, as I have previously indicated to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman’s broader point is a very relevant one, on remembering and honouring the victims of this appalling tragedy—one that, across this House, we all fully recognise—and the need for us to work together to ensure that appropriate changes are put in place. I certainly will not shrink from that, and I will certainly work with him on bringing forward changes. He knows that substantive changes have come from the Hackitt review, and I intend to publish further proposals on building regulations before the summer recess. I will certainly be updating the House on that again before the summer recess because, in honour of all those who lost their lives, we must get this right, and that is what the Government intend to do.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The Secretary of State says he has an expectation that building owners in the private sector will not pass costs on to leaseholders. I have met constituents at Premier House in Edgware who are rather concerned and would like to know what tangible and legal steps the Secretary of State will introduce to ensure that costs are not passed on to them, as leaseholders, either through a management charge or through a direct charge.
James Brokenshire
I certainly understand the concerns that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have expressed, which is why I have met a number of building owners directly to set out our expectations. The industry is considering how to ensure that those obligations are not passed on to leaseholders, but there is a growing sense of doing the right thing. It is notable that more building owners have determined to meet the costs themselves but, as I have indicated to the House, if they do not, I have not ruled anything out.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. One year on, our thoughts are with all the families and communities whose lives have been touched and altered unimaginably by this terrible tragedy. We welcome the publication of the Hackitt report, and I want to make it clear that the Scottish Government will swiftly consider any lessons and any actions that may be needed, as they did earlier this year when the Scottish housing Minister, Kevin Stewart, announced changes on requiring smoke alarms to be put in buildings.
One question I wish to ask today is whether the changes the Minister is announcing apply to buildings not in the super high-rise category? Do they apply just to super high-rise buildings or do they also apply to other high-rise buildings and other high-risk buildings that may be affected by combustible cladding and other poor fire safety procedures? We welcome the Prime Minister’s acceptance earlier today that her and her Government’s initial response to Grenfell was not good enough. I echo the views of the Opposition spokesperson in saying that I hope that those actions can be solid and can be taken much more quickly in future. I particularly wish to highlight issues relating to the mental health support that is available. I ask the Government to look closely at what is being done to ensure that those whose lives have been affected by this terrible tragedy are not at the high risk of attempting suicide that they seem to be just now and at ensuring that suitable mental health support is put in place so that they have the best support in future.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments and for the indication about the Scottish Government working with us as we seek to take a number of these proposals forward. Judith Hackitt’s report was very much focused on high-rise residential blocks, but she did indicate a need for reflection on whether the requirements she set out should have broader application. Clearly, as we move forward with the implementation of the Hackitt review and the consultation on the banning of combustible cladding, we will be keeping this under examination.
As I have indicated to the House, we accept that the initial response was not good enough and I have set out why we have been taking a number of the steps we have. The hon. Lady highlights the mental health issue. NHS England has responded really proactively, in terms of contacting all the bereaved through the family liaison officers, providing a 24-hour emergency response service, making outreach contacts and providing a comprehensive trauma service. The point is that that is not just for now; it will be for a considerable time to come. We firmly recognise the support that will be needed, and discussions continue with the NHS and others to see that that remains in place.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He will be aware that the Hackitt review described current building regulations as too complex, too confusing and “not fit for purpose” in the 21st century. So what discussions will he be having with representatives of the fire service, particularly the Chief Fire Officers Association, about how we can reform that to make sure that our building regulations are fit for purpose?
James Brokenshire
A considerable body of work needs to be advanced, and we are advancing it. My hon. Friend mentions the fire service, but we are also engaging with others on taking forward the implementation of the Hackitt review. It will require legislation and we want to get that right, and I will certainly be updating the House on the next steps in the coming weeks so that we can make that a reality. We need to put that system-wide change that Judith Hackitt underlined into effect, because of all the wide challenges that she rightly set out.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I very much welcome the regular updates by the Secretary of State. Will he add Bellway Homes to the list of developers who have been very helpful in paying back any of the extra costs to Palm House and Malt House residents in respect of the temporary fire prevention measures? However, there is some ambiguity about whether or not category 2 aluminium composite material cladding has to be removed from lower high-rise blocks. Clearly, there is concern about that, so I hope he will come forward with some more guidelines that will help the authorities.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the particular case in her constituency. The purpose of the consultation that I set out—the technical consultation that I intend to issue next week in relation to the banning of combustible cladding—is absolutely about seeking to give that clarity. It will obviously allow people to respond to that to ensure that this is in the right place, but issues over the nature of the materials to be used are absolutely at the heart of it.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
When I attended the very moving event held in Speaker’s House and spoke to survivors, one of the most striking and moving points made was residents telling me that repeated complaints and concerns had been raised but had not been listened to or acted on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the point in the Hackitt report where she recommends a clear line of complaint, recognition and action must be acted upon if we are to rebuild trust—not just in relation to Grenfell, but everywhere with tenants in high-rise buildings?
James Brokenshire
Trust lies at the absolute heart of all this, and the issue of escalation is one that Judith Hackitt refers to starkly and clearly in her report; it is one of the key recommendations. Obviously, all of it sets out change that needs to happen, but it is important that the complaints—the voices—are listened to and that there is a means of escalation so that change can happen.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On this sad anniversary, my thoughts, too, are with all those affected by Grenfell Tower.
The Secretary of State has already mentioned the Hackitt review and the implementation of the recommendations. I would like to insist on one particular recommendation—that is on the named qualified individual responsible for signing off on the safety of high-rise buildings. Is there a timeline for introducing a statutory instrument on that?
James Brokenshire
We will certainly be looking at steps that can be taken sooner rather than later in respect of the Hackitt review. As I said to the House when the review was published, while some of this will require primary legislation, not all of it will. Therefore, as we look at how to take this forward, I have charged my officials to set out what we may be able to do sooner rather than later, and where consultation may be required and where it may not, so that we can see progress and action. That is why I indicated then—and I will do so—that I would update the House before the summer recess.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Leaseholders in my constituency are continuing to be beset with fear at having costs ranging between £40,000 and £50,000 passed on to them to carry out remedial and fire safety work, so this is my question: it is okay for the Secretary of State to say that, morally, people should not be doing this, but does he not have to take action? It requires Government intervention to ensure that these costs are not passed on to leaseholders.
James Brokenshire
I hear that message loud and clear. It was a message that was conveyed to me very firmly at the leaseholder roundtable that I convened to hear directly from those who are really suffering at the moment—the concerns, the risks, the fear, the anxieties that they have. I think industry is starting to listen. I indicated some of the progress that has been made, but that needs to be at pace. It is the landlords and the building owners themselves who should bear that responsibility and cost. As I have said, if that does not happen, I will keep all issues under review.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was remarkably and refreshingly candid in saying that the Government had been too slow to act. Nine months ago, West Midlands fire service recommended a raft of measures to be taken to ensure that the 10,000 households in 213 tower blocks in Birmingham were safe, including retrofitting of sprinklers. Nine months later, not one penny has been forthcoming from Government to help Birmingham City Council—cash strapped—to carry out the necessary work to ensure those blocks are safe.
I know the Secretary of State is sympathetic to acting on this, but can I press him further: when will the Government act to make the necessary resources available, in partnership with local government?
Mr Speaker
That is an example of what I call shoehorning. The hon. Gentleman has shoehorned his very legitimate and intense preoccupation with matters Birmingham into an exchange about matters Grenfell, but we know he has done that in a positive spirit, and therefore the House is, I think, benignly disposed to him.
James Brokenshire
I know that that is an issue of particular concern to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Government have committed £400 million in respect of the remediation of combustible cladding. He makes a slightly different point, but we obviously have given financial flexibilities to local authorities in respect of other measures, and we are looking to provide any further technical detail in relation to the remediation of cladding in the coming weeks, and working with local government to ensure that the £400 million is duly utilised.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Will the Government set up a fund, as requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), so that, where fire safety officers recommend retrofitting sprinklers, they will be fitted and paid for by the Government?
James Brokenshire
I have already set out the position of the sprinkler issue in relation to new buildings. Obviously, it is for building owners to assess risk and consider what is appropriate for them. We have sought to support the sector in relation to remediation of combustible cladding with the £400 million and give financial flexibilities to local authorities, too. We will continue to keep the situation under review.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
In his statement, the Secretary of State spoke about further recommendations for change. Given that Government statistics for 2016-17 show that faulty electrical appliances were the second largest cause of accidental house fires in the UK, does he support my early-day motion 1119 on PAT testing of domestic electrical appliances?
James Brokenshire
I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I am not conscious of his early-day motion, but I will certainly look at it in due course to see the specific point that he has made. If any issues come through, I certainly commit to write to him in respect of his early-day motion. Obviously, we continue to keep the regulations under review, and, of course, the inquiry itself will be looking at a number of these issues.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I note what the Secretary of State says about sprinkler systems in new buildings, but how can we justify protecting tenants in new tower blocks in that way while leaving vulnerable and exposed tenants in existing tower blocks? How also can we justify the difference in treatment of hotel guests who are protected in existing buildings from sprinkler systems while leaving residents in tower blocks exposed?
James Brokenshire
We must look at the overall position of safety in buildings. I suppose that we could point to the fact that the Hackitt report drew that out. It is for building owners to seek professional advice and to decide whether to fit sprinklers on the basis of their assessment of the particular risk in a particular building. I must point out that my Department did write to local authorities and housing associations in 2013 to ask them to consider a coroner’s report recommendation that they should consider retrofitting sprinklers in existing high-rise residential buildings. It is for them to do so. As I have said, it is about looking at all of the measures that are in place in a building to protect and guard against fire safety issues. Again, we look forward to the recommendations that the inquiry itself will make.
Point of Order
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether she plans to make an oral statement on transitional protection in universal credit for people claiming severe disability premium?
On Thursday, the Government announced, via a written statement, that people receiving severe disability premium would not transfer to universal credit until its managed migration begins in 2019, at which point they will receive transitional protection. People who have already moved to universal credit will receive back payments.
This is an extremely important issue affecting more than half a million people. This is the fourth review that the Department has been forced to undertake in the past year, and an oral statement from the Secretary of State would give Members the opportunity to seek clarity over the steps the Department is intending to take in relation to the people affected.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. The short answer is that I have received no indication from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that she intends to make an oral statement on this subject. I advise the hon. Lady and the House that the question of whether the Government choose to announce a change of policy by written statement or by oral statement is a matter for Ministers to decide rather than for the Chair. That said, if the hon. Lady is dissatisfied—she has voiced her dissatisfaction this afternoon that a judgment has been made to indicate the change only via a written statement—there are various avenues open to her to pursue the issue further. The fact of being unsuccessful one day does not automatically preclude the possibility of success at a later stage, but Members are usually advised to be sensitive to the priorities of the House on the days in question. For example, tomorrow—I mention this en passant, although not entirely at random—the House is focused on very important legislative matters, and the same is true of Wednesday. But in my experience in this House, a combination of persistence and patience can pay. Meanwhile, the hon. Lady has put her view firmly on the record, and it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
Monday 11th June 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 View all Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This country faces significant threats to our national security. The first is the ongoing threat posed by terrorism to the safety and security of our communities and to the freedoms that we cherish as a nation. Another is the threat posed by hostile state activity, which we saw most recently in Salisbury.
As has been said many times before in this House, our police and intelligence agencies are unwavering in their commitment to protecting us and to keeping the country safe. They are ready to put their own lives on the line to help to save others. It is because of this commitment and professionalism that 25 Islamist terrorist attacks have been disrupted since 2013. Four extreme right-wing plots have also been foiled since the Westminster attack. But as we know all too well, there were five terrorist attacks last year. Thirty-six people were murdered, and many more are still grieving or coming to terms with life-changing injuries as a result of the terrorist atrocities in London and Manchester. We owe it to the victims and survivors to do our very best to prevent such attacks from happening again.
Of course, as Home Secretary, I do not want to offer false hope. No Home Secretary can guarantee that there will not be another terrorist attack on their watch. It is impossible for me to promise that there will not be more grieving parents, partners and children because of some senseless act of terrorist violence in the future. But what I can do as Home Secretary is to take a long, hard, forensic look at the powers available to the police, security services, prosecutors and judiciary, and to make sure that they have what they need, including powers to tackle the evolving threat to the UK from terrorism and from hostile state activity and powers to keep the public safe and protect our national security. This is what the wide-ranging Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill is all about; it is about keeping the people of this country safe.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend used the term “wide-ranging”. Is not that the key thing? The legislation should be wide-ranging and flexible because those who wish this country and our fellow citizens ill are always trying to keep one step ahead of our rules and regulations. It is important to have the flexibility to ensure that all the tools that our agents need are available to them.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and other hon. Members will see that much of this Bill is about updating existing powers to reflect the modern age—for example, some of the powers regarding the internet and online content.
This important piece of legislation will allow the police and MI5 to disrupt threats earlier and to ensure that our laws reflect modern use of the internet. It will change existing laws to manage terrorist offenders better and it will allow for more effective investigations. It will also give police more powers to investigate hostile state activity.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may be aware that, on the previous Bill dealing with the same subject matter, I tabled an amendment relating to terrorists coming from other countries. It said, in effect, that they should not be allowed back into this country and that measures should be taken. I know that the Security Minister is aware of this matter, and I do not want to go into it in detail, but I intend to table an amendment during the Committee stage. I would be grateful if it were given careful consideration because, relying on human rights legislation, far too many people are coming back into this country and then in a position to radicalise other people in the jails.
Sajid Javid
I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in these matters for many years. I will listen carefully to anything he has to say on that issue and so will the Security Minister. I look forward to seeing any amendments that he tables.
In March, we saw the attempted assassination in Salisbury of Sergei Skripal using a deadly nerve agent. That also put his daughter Yulia, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and many others in danger, including the brave men and women in the national health service and our frontline officers, who did all they could at the scene. They have continued to do so in the weeks and months since and have worked hard to save the Skripals. The attack was highly likely to be the work of the Russian state—a conclusion that is shared by many of our international partners. They have joined the UK in demonstrating to the Russian Government that the actions that they take are undermining the rule of law and international norms, and have serious consequences.
The events in Salisbury are part of a pattern of behaviour by the Russian Government, and the Russians are of course not alone in engaging in hostile activity that threatens our United Kingdom. So it is high time that we hardened our defences against hostile state activity.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend mentioned my constituent Nick Bailey, the police officer at Salisbury. Wiltshire police have been incredibly helpful to Nick and to his family, with whom I am liaising. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he, his Department and Wiltshire police will continue to give Nick and his family all the support that they need, given the unique circumstances of the incident and the ramifications that he and his family have had from it?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that the whole House has commended Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey for what he did and how he put himself in the line of danger just doing his job—as I am sure he would put it. We will work with him, through Wiltshire police and others, to make sure that he gets all the support that he needs.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Given what the Home Secretary is saying about Russia’s attempts to undermine our society and engage in very hostile acts such as the one in Salisbury, will he say a little about the allegations that we have read about over the weekend in The Observer, The Sunday Times and elsewhere about other Russian attempts to potentially undermine parliamentary democracy and our democracy in this country? What steps is he taking to work with other Departments—notably the Treasury and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—the Security Service and others to ensure that Russia is not attempting to influence and carry out potentially illegal activities in other areas?
Sajid Javid
The Cabinet Office is the Department responsible for overseeing elections and looking at allegations of that type. I know that it is taking this issue seriously. Alongside my Department, it is looking at intelligence and other information it is receiving. The two Departments are working closely together on this issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking it very seriously indeed.
It is because of hostile state activity that the Bill provides new powers to stop, question, search and detain people at ports, airports and the Northern Ireland border to determine whether they are spies or engaged in other types of hostile state activity. If it is confirmed that someone is a spy, they could be refused entry, deported or have other action taken against them. Those powers will of course be subject to strict safeguards and robust oversight to assure their proper use at all times.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is also about reducing the risk to the UK’s interests overseas from terrorism, as is the Contest strategy?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can confirm that. The powers in the Bill are designed to better protect us against all types of terrorist threats, including those from overseas, and against hostile state activity.
The other provisions in the Bill are about ensuring that we can respond more effectively to the changing terrorist threat. Part of that is arresting, prosecuting and convicting terrorists and imprisoning them for longer, as well as more rigorous management of those terrorists following their release from custody to prevent reoffending. The Bill will enable us to do all those things, in part by closing gaps in a number of existing terrorism offences.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Before the Home Secretary moves on, I just want to take him back to the issue of hostile states and checks on UK borders, including the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Can he confirm what discussions he has had with the Police Service of Northern Ireland? We talk about no border and it being as frictionless as possible, but some checks do need to be carried out for national security and safety.
Sajid Javid
I have not had a discussion directly with the PSNI on this, but the Department has had discussions with our Northern Ireland counterparts, and I believe there have been discussions with the PSNI, to ensure that the measures we are taking, on the borders in particular, take into account the needs of Northern Ireland.
In particular, the Bill will help to stop terrorists exploiting the internet. We know that terrorists are using the internet and social media to spew out vile propaganda and to call on others to follow their murderous lead. We know that online platforms are being used to spread hate and to try to recruit more people to join the ranks, and we know that people are being rapidly radicalised via the web. That is why the Bill includes measures to combat what is happening online as well as offline. For instance, the Bill will make it a criminal offence to display a terrorist flag online, in the same way that it is already a criminal offence to march down the high street waving one to show support for a terrorist organisation.
Provisions in the Bill will also make it easier to tackle those who stream or repeatedly view extremist material online. At the moment, if someone downloads a bomb-making video from the internet, they are committing a criminal offence. However, if they watch the same video by streaming it, they could escape prosecution. That is not right. The Bill criminalises the repeated viewing or streaming of terrorist material online, which will close the loophole that allows some people to watch gruesome propaganda without any fear of prosecution. The Bill will mean that people who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will know that I share his strong belief in taking strong action against the terrorist threat, but I am concerned about the wording of clause 3 and some of the other clauses. Would the clause apply if, for example, I streamed or watched on YouTube a National Action video? The Select Committee has been taking action to try to get its video removed. If, in the process of pursuing and pressurising YouTube to get the National Action video taken down, members of the Home Affairs Committee watched the video more than three times, would that mean we were guilty of a criminal offence? I can tell him that it was certainly left up there for rather more than three times and we were forced to watch it.
Sajid Javid
That is an important question from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and I want to be clear in my response. This would not apply in the circumstances that she describes. The objective is clearly to find and punish those with terrorist intent. There will be a reasonable excuse defence, as there is for other laws, for those who have a legitimate use; the right hon. Lady gave one example, but it could apply to academics, journalists or news organisations. That defence will exist.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I support many of these measures, but why is it three times? I accept the definition in terms of academic research, a journalist or the case of the Home Affairs Committee, but what happens, for example, if a teenager or someone with mental health problems watches a video more than three times? Do they automatically fall into this category, or does the reasonableness test apply?
Sajid Javid
The objective is to allow for the fact that it is quite possible for someone to accidentally come across such a video, be curious and watch it one time and perhaps a second time. I am not pretending that there is something magical about the number three. This is an attempt to capture repeated viewing, which may suggest that the intent is not innocent. Of course, should the Bill become an Act of Parliament and someone is prosecuted under this law, that decision would be made by the police, based on evidence and working with the Crown Prosecution Service. As with other criminal offences of this type, the CPS would use its judgment to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am just intrigued why it is three times and whether this always has to be done in context. Clearly, if it is part of a pattern of behaviour and someone is watching not just one video three times but a series of videos, that is different but, if we are not careful, some opponents of the Bill will highlight the fact that anyone who watches such a video three times will necessarily get prosecuted, which I know is not the Home Secretary’s intention.
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. Some people have already made similar comments, but clearly that is not the intention behind the Bill, and there are safeguards in place. I welcome his overall support for the Bill. This is why it is important to debate these issues and for Parliament to come to a collective decision. I am quite open to ideas from parliamentarians, and perhaps in Committee we can look more closely at these provisions to ensure that we have the balance right.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I can tell my right hon. Friend that he has my wholehearted support for the Bill. It is one thing to go after the people who are looking at terrorist material online, but it is another thing under clause 4 to go after people who are publishing it online. Surely, what we really need to do is get this material offline as quickly as possible. Will the Bill do anything to shut down the internet providers that allow such material to be put online?
Sajid Javid
I will give my hon. Friend two responses. First, he may know that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking separately at the whole issue of internet safety and potential legislation, which I am sure he will discuss with the House at the right time. Secondly, I was in silicon valley just last week to meet all the big internet and communications companies. While recognising that they have done a lot to remove terrorist content, especially in the past year, there is still a lot more that can be done. Those efforts will continue beyond the Bill, and given the meetings that the US Homeland Security Secretary and I have had with those companies, I hope that we will be able to announce in due course further measures that they will take to do just that.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. The Bill will make it illegal to watch the streaming of such material, but will he confirm that it is definitely an offence for YouTube or any such platform to stream terrorist material?
Sajid Javid
It is not an offence for internet companies to stream such material under UK law—currently—and the Bill will not have an impact on that. That said, as I mentioned a moment ago in response to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Government, led by DCMS, are separately looking at what further internet safety measures may need to be taken.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is being very generous in giving way. He mentioned that social media providers have taken lots of action, but it is my understanding that the Metropolitan police have asked for 400 videos to be taken off YouTube that are essentially about incitement to violence. Is this Bill not an appropriate vehicle to provide a power for all police authorities to compel social media providers to take down videos that are about incitement to violence?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman mentioned YouTube, and I think—if I remember the number correctly—that it has removed something like 300,000 pieces of terrorist material. There is, however, a lot more that needs to be done not just by YouTube, but by many other internet companies. There is already an ability for the Government or, more likely, the police and other trusted organisations to flag up certain content on the internet, whether videos, stills or other types of content. So far this year, we are seeing a marked improvement in the speed with which that content is being taken down. In many cases, it is being taken down within the hour.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that what has also grown considerably in relation to taking down content is the use of machine learning—trying to have the right algorithms to take down content much more quickly. For example, Facebook removed some 1.9 million pieces of content in the first quarter of this year, which is up some 70% on the same quarter of last year. In many cases, the content is being removed within minutes, and in some cases it can be stopped even before it is uploaded.
Stephen Doughty
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), I was very concerned to hear, when the companies appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, that they are not routinely searching even for the basic list of all proscribed organisations. I accept that some of this is stuff is in quite a grey territory and may sometimes not be picked up by machine learning, but one would expect that they, at a very basic level, would be searching for the names of proscribed organisations. I have found multiple examples of such content, including from Northern Irish terrorist organisations and others, on all these platforms that is not being removed even by the most basic checks. Why can we not compel the companies to do this?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman makes another good point in this debate. He is right to say that many leading internet organisations were not searching for proscribed organisations, or certainly not for all of them. So far this year, however, there has certainly been a significant improvement. We are monitoring this ourselves, and we are in constant dialogue with those companies. I am not going to pretend that every single one of them is doing that now, but there has been a huge improvement.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I am slightly confused about the Government’s direction of travel. I think that there is quite widespread support across the House for action against the people publishing this material, to get it before it is put up. The Government are clearly looking at that, and if they come forward with such measures, they would be welcomed. However, the Home Secretary has said of the provisions in the Bill that the Government are not sure that the three clicks approach is right because it could catch innocent people. Is it not more advisable to focus on what would actually work, solve the problem at the root cause and get support from across the House?
Sajid Javid
To be absolutely clear, what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as the three clicks approach—let us call it the multiple viewing approach—is absolutely the right one, which is why it is in the Bill. From the discussions that I and the Minister for Security and Economic Crime have already had with colleagues on both sides of the House, I think that it commands a wide body of support in the House, and that will of course be tested during the passage of the Bill.
The wider issues of internet regulation—those applying not just to terrorist content, but to child sexual exploitation, serious violence, gang violence and such offences—and the collective harms of some internet content are together being looked at by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, and I believe that a consultation is going on at the moment. That is the right place to look at those issues, because the kind of regulation mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is not covered by the Bill.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am very sorry to labour this point with my right hon. Friend, but one of the most critical aspects of defeating terrorism is getting this content off the internet as quickly as possible. Surely, a voluntary approach is better than a legislative one, so can he give the House any information from his private meetings with the internet companies? After all, Google, Facebook and others have some of the cleverest IT writers on the planet, so they should surely be able to take down this stuff almost before anybody notices it.
Sajid Javid
As my hon. Friend knows, because I have already said it, I met the companies he has mentioned and others last week. This was the only topic that we discussed: the meetings were very focused on terrorist content on the internet. He is right to point out that, through voluntary action and persuasion, a lot has already been achieved, and all these companies understand that legislation has not been ruled out.
My hon. Friend asked me to say a bit more about some of the newer work that the companies are doing, but I hesitate to do so. That sort of thing should be announced at the right time, because it requires international co-ordination. There is a lot more work, and I will say that a lot more effort is going into the use of both machine learning and artificial intelligence to deal with this very important issue. I must now make progress, because a number of Members wish to speak in this debate.
The Bill will extend the ability of police and prosecutors to bring charges for terrorist offences that are committed overseas. It is not of course for the law enforcement agencies in this country to police the world, but if someone travels from the UK and commits a terrorist offence abroad, it is right that they are brought to justice if they return here. This is already the case for many terrorist offences, but there are a few gaps in the coverage. That is why the Bill extends the jurisdiction of the UK courts to cover further terrorist offences that are committed abroad, including the dissemination of terrorist publications and the possession of explosives for the purposes of an act of terrorism.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
Why has the Home Secretary decided not to include the Australian scheme using the declared area offence, whereby Australia deems it illegal for people to travel to certain designated terror hotspots, such as Iraq and Syria? The Minister for Security and Economic Crime has been looking at this for some time, yet it is not part of the Bill.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Australian extraterritorial offence that has been created, and I am looking at just that. There is a bit more work to do, and it is not as straightforward as it might sound. If it is to become a legislative proposal, I obviously want to make sure that we have considered it properly. If I am persuaded by it and we can complete the work in time, I intend to bring that forward as a Government amendment to the Bill.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Home Secretary has my support on the thrust of the Bill. However, on matters such as the one that has just been raised, will he assure me that he will ensure there are exemptions and defences for quite legitimate purposes? For example, we do not want to get into arguments about whether an aid worker has crossed a particular line when they are in an area for purposes that none of us would view as criminal.
Sajid Javid
Yes, I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. As with many of these types of measures, there is always the need to consider what I would call a reasonable excuse defence.
Once we have brought terrorists to justice and secured their conviction by a jury, we want to make sure that the public are protected by locking up terrorist offenders for longer and allowing more robust supervision on their release. The punishment for terrorism must properly reflect the severity of the crime. That is why the Bill allows for the introduction of longer sentences, of up to 15 years, for a number of offences, including the collecting of terrorist information, the encouragement of terrorism and the dissemination of terrorist publications. Previously, the maximum sentence was up to 10 years for such offences.
As well as increasing the maximum length of sentences, we need to ensure that terrorist offenders are not released from custody until it is safe to do so. When they are released, they need to be subject to longer periods of supervision on licence. The Bill will achieve this by enabling the courts to impose a public protection sentence for a wider range of terrorism offences. Offenders will not be released automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, but will instead stay in prison until the Parole Board decides to release them.
We are also extending sentencing provisions to Northern Ireland that already operate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The sentences handed down by the courts in Northern Ireland have been of particular concern to some hon. Members, and the Bill will help to address that.
The Bill will make it easier to monitor terrorist offenders once they have been released by requiring them to notify the police of their bank or passport details and any vehicles that they may possess or have access to.
Mr Kevan Jones
I support the measures that the Home Secretary is outlining. In the briefing documents he sent before the debate, he referred to this measure as being similar to the monitoring of sex offenders in the community. In those cases, there is clear joint working between the probation service and police at local level. Is he envisaging a similar system for monitoring those who have been convicted of terrorism offences?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I am.
The Bill will update the law relating to terrorism reinsurance. The attack last year on Borough market highlighted a gap in the current arrangements that the Bill now addresses. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for the important work that he has done on this issue on behalf of his constituents.
Next Tuesday will mark the anniversary of the attack outside the Finsbury Park Islamic centre last year. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Mr Makram Ali, who died on that day a year ago, just as they are with the victims and survivors of other attacks last year in Westminster, the Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Parsons Green. We cannot turn back the clock to undo what was done in those five attacks, but we can and must learn the lessons and do everything in our power to prevent such suffering from being inflicted ever again. The Bill plays an important part in ensuring we do just that and I commend it to the House.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
In 2017, as the House has heard, the UK was subject to five terrorist attacks, which killed 36 people, injured many more and terrified millions. Furthermore, this year there was the shocking assassination attempt on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. So it is reasonable that the Government should review, and if necessary update, counter-terrorism legislation and arrangements for border security.
First, I want to pay tribute to the survivors and the bereaved of the terrorist atrocities in London and Manchester last year. The young girls at the Manchester Arena who came to see their favourite singer saw sights that children of that age should never have to see. I also want to pay tribute to all the brave women and men of the emergency services, who often run into danger and step forward in dreadful times. We should not forget the NHS workers—together with support from Porton Down—who were confronted with circumstances that they could never have dreamed of, but who saved the lives of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
I turn to the Bill before us. Let me begin by saying that I agreed with the Home Secretary when he said recently that there is no binary choice between security and liberty. What makes us free is often what makes us safe. It is certainly what makes ours a country and a way of life worth serving and defending. I am not saying that just as a member of Her Majesty’s Opposition—I fought infringements of our civil liberties, together with some of his Cabinet colleagues, when a Labour Government tried to introduce them, notably ID cards and 90 days’ detention without trial. I defend civil liberties without fear or favour.
The question that arises is whether the Bill is necessary, appropriate and proportionate. Although we support the Bill overall, a careful examination will show that it does not necessarily meet all those criteria. That is why we will seek to amend clauses of the Bill in Committee.
The Home Secretary will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee said in 2001:
“This country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy.”
In 2008, Lord Lloyd of Berwick told the other place:
“No other country in the world…has had anything like the same plethora of”
anti-terrorism
“legislation that we have had.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 2008; Vol. 703, c. 700.]
More recently, Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said last year that Britain
“has the laws we need. We should review them and ensure they ensure remain fit for purpose, but we should have faith in our legal structures, rather than trying to create some kind of new situation where the ordinary rules are thrown out.”
To the extent that the Bill does not throw out the ordinary rules, it has our broad support.
Finally in relation to expert opinion, I turn to the review by Dave Anderson, QC, of the terrorist incidents last year in Manchester and London. He made a series of recommendations, ranging from multi-agency working to greater intelligence sharing and more consistent handling of intelligence, but there was not a single recommendation of new laws or powers.
Nevertheless, we have the Bill before us, and the Opposition broadly support it. I will now set out our reservations. First, it will update offences in a way that will potentially criminalise information seeking, playing of videos and expressions of opinion. In relation to the playing of videos, the Home Secretary will have heard the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about three clicks being a significant number. We will seek to clarify the point in Committee.
On the question of expressing opinion, the Home Office says in its note on the Bill that it is
“not making it unlawful to hold a private view in support of a terrorist organisation”.
The Home Office also says:
“Operational experience has shown that there is a gap around individuals who make statements expressing their own support for terrorist organisations...but who stop short of expressly inviting others to do so”.
The Home Secretary will expect that we will press that point in Committee, because we would say that gap between having an opinion and inciting others to unlawful acts is not an anomaly but an important principle in protecting freedom of speech. We are in danger in the Bill of confusing bad thoughts with bad deeds. We hope to clarify this issue as the Bill makes progress.
Another concern about the Bill is the extent to which it allows the retention of biometric data on anyone arrested, including DNA and fingerprints, even if they are mistakenly or even unlawfully arrested. There are already abuses of the national police database, which the Government have failed to correct. The state has no business keeping records on people who are not criminals. It is an essential part of our liberty that we can go about our day-to-day lives unhindered by state agencies. That is not the case if the state can retain data on all of us. It is an even greater breach of our civil liberties if the retention is done without our knowledge.
A further concern about the Bill is what it has to say about the Prevent strategy. It proposes extending the Prevent strategy by allowing local authorities, as well as the police, to refer people to the Prevent programme. Let me be clear that there will always be a need for a programme that does what Prevent purports to do. I have met Commissioner Neil Basu and other Metropolitan police leads on Prevent, and I visited Prevent-funded programmes in Birmingham and elsewhere. I have no doubt that there is some good work being done in the name of Prevent, but Prevent as a whole is a tainted brand, particularly among sections of the Muslim community. From a recent study by the Behavioural Insights Team, commissioned by the Home Office itself, we also know that more than 95% of deradicalisation programmes are ineffective. I suggest that those two facts—that Prevent is a tainted brand and that so many of the deradicalisation programmes are ineffective—are not unrelated.
Labour is committed to a thorough review of the Prevent programme, which we believe is currently not fit for purpose. In the interests of transparency and accurate evidence-based policy making, I call on the Home Secretary today to publish the research by the Behavioural Insights Team, which has been so widely reported and seems to run counter to the claims made for the success of these programmes.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I did not intend to intervene—I will speak at length later—but is the right hon. Lady aware that about 75% of people referred to Prevent are, having been through the programme, of no further interest to the police or security services? That sounds like success to me.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Just to advise Members who may want to speak at length later, they will have up to 15 minutes and no more.
Ms Abbott
I have visited Prevent programmes and I am aware that good work is being done, but the figure that 95% of deradicalisation programmes are not effective should not be put to one side. We have to address it and we have to address whether there is any connection at all with the fact that Prevent is a tainted brand among the members of some communities.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a fair point. I think we need some sort of Prevent strategy, so I accept the need to review it. Does the fact that over 6,000 individuals were referred through the Prevent strategy, over half of whom were under 20, show how careful we need to be in pursuing this policy, even if it is the right policy for the Government to have?
Ms Abbott
I accept the need for a programme that does what Prevent purports to do, but there is a danger. If we do not review the activities of Prevent, it may prove counterproductive in the very communities we want to work with. As for the question of local authorities becoming referral agents, at least the police have had some training in this matter, whatever we think of the programme, but local authorities have no expertise in counter-terrorism. The danger is that pointless referrals and what seems, I am afraid, to be useless deradicalisation counselling will snowball.
Simon Hoare
I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady. Just to clarify, is she saying that she would review the Prevent strategy, or, given the data or allegations she has repeated—from, I think she said, a lawyer—that she would press the pause button on Prevent, stop it and invent something else? If it is the latter, what is the something else? I think that goes straight to the point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).
Ms Abbott
I said quite clearly that we would seek to review it. We could not at this point press the pause button, but the data we have about the effectiveness of deradicalisation programmes and what we know about how Prevent is regarded in some parts of the community means that we would want to review it.
One of the most worrying aspects of the Bill is the creation of powers of detention, interrogation, search or seizure without any suspicion whatever of crime, but simply while people are crossing borders. That is to treat anyone, British citizen or not, as a potential terrorist simply in the act of crossing the border. Such powers should be granted only with due care. All inhibitions on the rights of the citizen by the state must be based on evidence or reasonable grounds for suspicion. They must be subject to challenge—[Interruption.] I hope the House will allow me to conclude my remarks. If suspicion-free detention, interrogation and search is allowed, then it cannot be challenged. If there is no basis for challenge, there is likely to be no basis for detention. How does that accord with the Government’s claim to be building a new, global Britain?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The director general of MI5, Andrew Parker, said in a speech in October last year that the ongoing terrorist threat was operating at a scale and pace we have not seen before. Does the right hon. Lady’s party support the Bill in principle or not?
Ms Abbott
I think I have said three times that we broadly support the Bill in principle, but we are Her Majesty’s Opposition and we are entitled to set out our reservations on Second Reading.
There is much in the Bill about increasing sentences for terrorism-related activity. I say seriously to the Home Secretary that he also needs to look at what more could be done to guard against radicalisation in prison. A certain amount has been done in trying to separate imams and so on from other prisoners, but the fact is that too many young men not of a Muslim background get caught up in extremist ideology while behind bars. We cannot continue to have a situation where people emerge from prison more radicalised than when they went in.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
On that point, does the right hon. Lady agree that we should be concerned by reports that emerged from Belgium that the suspect in the appalling and brutal murder of two police officers was a small-time crook who, it appears, had been radicalised in custody? Does she therefore agree that she should support all the Government’s excellent efforts to try to deal with this important issue?
Ms Abbott
I think Members are seeking to have me say what they want me to say and are not listening to my speech. What I am saying is that it is all well and good to put more people in prison for longer, but there is more we could do about radicalisation in prison. It is shocking to me to see young men, who had no connection with Islam before going into prison, coming out of prison as Islamic radicals. We can do something about that, because while they are in prison they are in the hands of the state. I think there is more that can be done.
In Dave Anderson’s review, he called for greater collaboration between the counter-terrorism police, MI5 and neighbourhood police, but—I make no apologies for repeating this—the Government have cut police numbers by 21,000. In practice, their cuts have undermined Dave Anderson’s recommendations. We cannot have greater collaboration between counter-terrorism and neighbourhood police if the numbers of neighbourhood police are being cut. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick has said that coping with counter-terrorism is putting an unsustainable strain on the police. The head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Sara Thornton, said:
“Fewer officers and Police Community Support Officers will cut off the intelligence that is so crucial to preventing attacks.”
New laws, whatever their merits, are no substitute for effective policing, and not just counter-terrorism policing. Ministers will tell us how much more they are spending on counter-terrorism, but almost as important as actual counter-terrorism officers is ordinary neighbourhood policing, which is our frontline against terrorism. Laws, whatever their merit, become a dead letter without enough police officers.
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend on that point. We are very lucky in Wales that, thanks to the investment from the Welsh Labour Government, we still have substantial numbers of police community support officers on our streets. They play a crucial role. All the police officers I talk to, including senior police officers, tell me about the real pressures and strains they face, and the impact of the lack of community policing on the frontline in the fight against terrorism.
Ms Abbott
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is what we are hearing from police leaders all the time. They want to do their very best against terrorism, but the cuts to the number of officers puts them under a great deal of strain.
Broadly, and in principle, we support the Bill. As the Home Secretary would expect, we will give it particularly careful scrutiny in Committee. We hope it will come out of Committee a better Bill. The safety of the nation depends on it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I bring in the next speaker, just a reminder—I have told speakers that this is a very important debate, so please let us not abuse other people’s time. I call John Hayes; you have up to 15 minutes.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Terrorism blights lives and in some cases, of course, it takes lives. We have already heard from Members on both sides of the House about the appalling events of the last year, and they will be in all our minds as we debate these measures. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was right to focus on the events in Manchester, not because any terrorist event is greater or less than any other, but because of the chilling image of those children, which she rightly focused on in her remarks.
Terrorism is not just about the people whose lives are lost. All of us are affected by it, including those who are related to the people who died, those in their communities, those in the wider network of people who came into contact with these events—the emergency services have been mentioned—and others. All of us are a little diminished, are we not, when these things happen in our country? Fear is spread. Doubt is fuelled. That is part of the terrorists’ aim, of course: to intimidate us, change us and frighten us. It is right to say that in our response, we must be mindful of the need to retain the freedoms that terrorists seek to extinguish. Nevertheless, it is equally true that we must ensure that we are well equipped to deal with terrorists as they change their modus operandi.
There are two things that have altered most about terrorism in recent times. The first is the terrorists’ ability to communicate their message using modern methods—to proselytise, to convert, to recruit. They do that by messages and images, and modern media is such that it can be done much more easily than in years gone by. They are ruthless and merciless in the way they go about that business. When I was the Home Office Minister responsible for security, I was well aware of the good work that is done in Government to deal with that, but it is a constant challenge. Every day images are put up, and every day they are countered or we aim to get them taken off the internet. They only have to be there for a very short time to have their effect, or their possible effect, as they are digested by vulnerable people.
The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington also talked about the young people who are referred to the Prevent strategy, and I want to return to that in a moment. Young people, in particular, are at the greatest risk. They are impressionable and vulnerable. They may simply be lonely and in need, and the terrorist acts much like any other kind of social or cultural predator. They recruit by corrupting. They seek to own that young person, and once they own them, they direct them with wicked purpose. There are parallels with other kinds of corruption. People are recruited in the same way by sexual predators: they are groomed. We know this from evidence that has been brought before the House, from the work of Select Committees and from the Home Office.
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that it is both our responsibility and our duty to ensure that all those missions to keep young people and others safe are best equipped to do so not only by their training and skills, but also by the legislation that underpins their work. Successive Governments have recognised that over time. Indeed, it is a sad strength of this country that we have more experience of dealing with terrorism than most others, because of the events in Northern Ireland. That knowledge and understanding of terrorism has allowed us to develop skills that other countries do not always have—as I said, it is a matter of sadness that we should have had to do so. None the less, those skills have to be updated and refined over time, for the other principal change in terrorism is that terrorists have become more flexible.
Countering terrorism is largely about trying to anticipate events. The Contest strategy is about prevention—it is about anticipation as well as response—and anticipating events is, in essence, rooted in the idea that patterns of behaviour and likely courses of action can be measured. When terrorists become less predictable, they are harder to counter, and they have become less predictable over time as the more recent terror events show. For example, let us take the use of vehicles as a weapon—it sounds pretty straightforward, does it not? It is horrible, of course, in its effect. Vehicles are routine things that can be obtained without too much fuss or bother, and once someone knows that they merely need a vehicle rather than a bomb, they know that they can go about their deadly business, as we saw in Westminster and elsewhere. That additional flexibility—that new approach by the terrorists—requires laws that are fit for purpose and which allow us to respond to the changing character of terrorism. That is what has been brought before the House today.
I was pleased as a Minister to bring the Investigatory Powers Bill—now the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—to the House. It was very challenging because, of course, questions were asked about it. The right hon. Lady spoke about scrutiny and the role of the Opposition. She knows that the Opposition and I worked very closely together on that Bill. The Government made key changes as the Bill made its way through the House, because we recognised that part of the Opposition’s role is to challenge and oblige Government to question themselves about the appropriateness of various aspects of what they are proposing. We ended up with a good piece of legislation, which has further enabled the security services and police to go about their business in respect not just of terrorism, but of serious organised crime. This Bill is very much in the same spirit. It updates the legislative basis on which our security services and the police can do their work by recognising the changes in the pattern of behaviour of those we face.
The Secretary of State went through the details of the legislation—I have it all here, but to do so again would both be tedious and, I suspect, would test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the overture at the beginning of the debate that many wanted to speak and none should do so for too long.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My right hon. Friend has talked about terrorist methods continually changing. Did not the situation in Northern Ireland tell us that we needed constantly to update our legislation, often by emergency legislation, to keep one step ahead of the terrorists?
Mr Hayes
Yes, that did happen, but I would go as far as to say—reflecting what Andrew Parker said—that the scale of what we now face and its character is unprecedented in modern times. I am cautious about being too definitive about these things, because it is never wise to be so, but I defer to the man who runs MI5, who is closest to these matters. I think that we are facing new challenges of the kind that we have never really seen before. To go back to my earlier remarks, when we think of Irish terrorism, there was, for the most part, a degree of predictability, and the key difference with terrorism then was that most of the terrorists did not want to risk their own lives. They wanted to save the lives of the operatives. That is a fundamental difference from the sort of terrorism that we have seen in more recent years. There are also differences in the command structure of terrorism in Ireland compared with what we now face. Many of the terrorists that we seek to counter, and which this legislation addresses, are people who have been radicalised in their own home. They are inspired by rather than part of an organised network. Given what I said about the availability of weapons, in that a vehicle can be a weapon, one can imagine the damage that an inspired terrorist, possibly unknown to the security services and police until they commit the act, might do.
Simon Hoare
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that one acute difference between Irish terrorism and the threat today is that in the Irish situation an agreed code word was usually used to alert the security services that something was about to kick off? We do not have that today, which is why this very flexible, proactive approach to regulations required to try to keep us safe—we will not manage it in all circumstances, but we will do our damnedest—is pivotal.
Mr Hayes
The Irish people endured the horror of terrorism for a very long time, and we should not be complacent about any part of our kingdom, but there are differences with what we face now, which I have already mentioned and others will no doubt elaborate upon during the debate.
Before coming to the end of this brief speech—certainly brief by my standards—I want to deal with Prevent. I worked with Prevent and I will mention two things that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said with which I fully agree and then I will deal with the things I did not agree with, as that is the polite thing to do. She is absolutely right about radicalisation in prisons. No Government have got this right. In a previous incarnation, I was the Minister responsible for prison education, would you believe? It is not an easy job, I can tell you, and I was never really satisfied that we got it right. I do not think the previous Government got it right either. This is not about party politics. We probably need to look at it afresh. I agree with her about that.
It is, in my view, a good thing, by and large, to keep people who do dreadful things in prison for longer, but the right hon. Lady is quite right that if we are keeping them in prison ever longer, and given the serious chance that they will be radicalised accordingly, there is a risk that they might do a degree in being radicalised, rather than just an A-level. I am inclined to her view that we need to look at that with even greater determination than in the past. With this Home Secretary and this Security Minister, we have the best chance ever of bringing fresh eyes to this. Proust, I think, said that there was no such thing as “new landscapes”, only “new eyes” to see them. Perhaps, in a Proustian fashion, they will look at the right hon. Lady’s suggestion.
The second thing I agree with the right hon. Lady about is the need to ensure that there is proper oversight of Prevent and that we measure its effect properly. When I was Minister, I revitalised the oversight board in the Home Office—I am sure that my successor has added even greater value than I could have hoped to add in that respect—and I was also determined to measure the effect of Prevent more routinely and more transparently.
None the less, I disagree with her about Prevent as a concept. The work of our Prevent co-ordinators, at the very frontline of radicalisation, is heroic. I met them time and again all over country. I went around the country to see the Channel operation and the Channel panels. The people who contribute to Channel and who co-ordinate and run Prevent are doing immensely good work in very difficult circumstances. I do not say that they always get it right—perhaps they do not—but I do say that without them the circumstances we face would be altogether worse. They are making a huge difference in towns and cities across the country day by day. I celebrate their achievements while never being uncritical, as in my comments on measurement and oversight.
Sir Edward Davey
Did the right hon. Gentleman meet any representatives from Muslim communities who perceived it to be a flawed scheme?
Mr Hayes
There is an argument about how Prevent is perceived and how communities in which the co-ordinators operate understand it, and, consequently, there is an argument for promoting it more effectively—I will meet the right hon. Gentleman halfway—but do not forget that some of the critics of Prevent are people who do not want it to work. Some of its critics are critics because they do not believe in what we are trying to achieve. We have to start from the perspective that not everyone is a balanced and reasoned critic, and perceptions are, to some extent, coloured by that. I introduced the Prevent duty when I was the Minister so that local authorities, health authorities, schools, colleges and others could add value to Prevent by identifying those most at risk. Let us be clear: these are people at risk of being groomed to do wicked things.
With that and to give others a chance to speak far more persuasively than I could ever hope to do, I end by saying that our will to combat terrorism must never falter, our resolve never waver. This House must have the same kind of certain confidence as our security services and police have in their certain determination—their mission—to defeat terrorism.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who made some thoughtful remarks but inexplicably failed to stick to his 15-minute time limit, which was a surprise to us all in the Chamber.
In the past couple of years, we have seen deadly terrorist attacks across the world, including in Mosul, Baghdad, Istanbul, Kabul, New York, Paris, Nice, Munich and Stockholm, and last year the UK was subjected to five terrorist attacks in London and Manchester that killed 36 innocent victims and injured many more. We may have honourable disagreements about many aspects of the Bill, but we owe it to the people affected by last year’s attacks to debate these differences as a matter of principle and efficacy rather than on the basis of petty party political interests.
Glasgow airport, in my constituency, was the target of an attempted terror attack in 2007. It came as a huge shock to all Scots given that we had had very little experience of dealing with terrorist acts on Scottish soil. It proved that nowhere and no one is immune to the threat of terrorism. With that in mind, I can assure the Minister and the House that the Scottish National party will engage in this debate in the appropriate manner, treating it with the respect and seriousness that it deserves.
In an increasingly changing and digital world, the SNP supports giving law enforcement agencies the necessary powers to fight serious crime and terrorism. The world is becoming ever more complex, and terrorists are utilising sophisticated measures to plan their attacks. As such, it is of extreme importance that we keep our response and policies under continual review to ensure that we take the most effective action possible to prevent terrorist acts from occurring, while—crucially—respecting and upholding our civil liberties.
During the debates that will follow, the SNP will judge any proposed new powers or the extension of existing ones according to whether they are appropriate, effective, proportionate and respectful of civil liberties. This is the approach we adopted during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Act, during which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and I argued that aspects of the Bill were unlawful. We might have been defeated in this place, but we were not alone, and successful court challenges by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) West Bromwich and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and subsequently by Liberty, proved that we had been right to oppose the measures. I hope that the Government have learned from that experience.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I just want to clarify the point about the Investigatory Powers Act. It is important for the House to know that in the legal challenge the Government were successful in defending the Act on three out of four measures. It was on the measure about judicial oversight that we conceded, as hon. Members will see in the Bill.
Gavin Newlands
I appreciate the Minister’s intervention. As I outlined, my hon. and learned Friend made these points during the Committee stage of the 2016 Act, but I accept his point.
I hope that the Government have learned the lesson and will work with all parties to ensure that the policy can survive any potential legal challenge and carry the support of the House. There will be no petty opposition for opposition’s sake, but we will cast a critical eye on the Bill and table amendments to improve it in Committee and on Report.
After the London Bridge attack last year, the Prime Minister announced a review of the Contest strategy to establish whether the police and the security forces had the powers that they needed to tackle those who would seek to cause us harm. Following David Anderson’s very thorough review, the Bill is intended to bolster the Government’s counter-terrorism approach and strengthen a variety of measures to respond to the terrorist threat, allowing earlier intervention to disrupt terrorism.
I agree with the Government’s desire to intervene at an early stage. Such intervention is not only effective in stopping terrorist attacks, but helpful in preventing young people from becoming radicalised. Terrorist organisations are using 21st-century measures, including social media, to promote their propaganda as a means of radicalising youngsters. It is only right for the Government to review their approach to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century and future-proofed as far as is practically possible, but the internet providers and the social media companies also have a responsibility to ensure that terrorists cannot exploit their systems to promote their poisonous agenda. They must be involved in this process as well. On too many occasions they have been unwilling to take down terrorist content, and slow in doing so.
We are broadly in favour of the aims of the Bill but, while some of its provisions will attract our support, others will need to be tested in Committee. We must ensure that lowering thresholds and the burden of proof does not become so extreme that it impinges severely on civil liberties.
The Bill seeks to amend the offence of collecting terrorist information to cover the repeated viewing or streaming of material online. I accept the point that streaming material has become far more common since the previous legislation was drafted, and that we need a more robust approach. The implementation of this policy will give our police and security services the power to compel internet companies to assist them in carrying out covert surveillance on suspects streaming terror-related content. However, the way in which the process is set in motion is key.
In Committee, the Government will need to set out their case very well, explaining their proposed definition of “streaming” and the new three strikes, three clicks approach to people who stream extremist terror content. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pressed the Home Secretary on that point earlier. In all likelihood, the approach will prove to be over-simplistic. While we are sympathetic to the Government’s goal of early prevention of potential terrorist acts, we must ensure that their proposals are evidence-based, and that civil liberties are not eroded or forgotten in the process. Like others who have spoken, I feel that the Government should be doing much more to stop the material at source by placing a statutory duty on the online platforms on which the material is viewed.
The Government intend the offence to cover circumstances in which the defendant is in control of a computer but, in addition, and with a much higher degree of difficulty, circumstances in which an individual is viewing the material, for example, over the controller’s shoulder. That may prove to be impossible, and is an obvious example of parts of the Bill which, if unamended, may be open to challenge in court. Campaigners have already voiced concerns about the proposed policy, suggesting that it unfairly targets innocent people. Rachel Robinson, of Liberty, has said:
“Blurring the boundary between thought and action by locking people up simply for exploring ideas undermines the foundations of our criminal justice system. Terrorists’ primary goal is to undermine our freedom. With proposals like this, the government risks giving them exactly what they want.”
Along with the Scottish Government. we will work with the Minister to ensure that that is not the case and that we get this important part of the Bill right. Campaigners have also pointed out that an attempt to introduce a similar terror streaming law in France last year was struck down twice. I should be keen to learn from the Minister what discussions he has had with his counterparts in France about their experience of trying to introduce a similar law, and whether the Government have been able to learn any lessons from them.
The Home Secretary also seeks to amend the offence of encouragement of terrorism so that action can be taken to target those who seek to radicalise children or young people who may not understand what they are being encouraged to do. It is vital that we reassess our approach to preventing vulnerable youngsters from becoming radicalised, and send a clear message to the recruiters that they will face the full force of the law if they attempt to prey on our young people. In my role on the Justice Committee, I had a long conversation with a now convicted terrorist. That has had a profound effect on me and, in particular, on my thoughts about how we can try to protect young people from terrorist influence online.
I understand the arguments that certain provisions in this Bill unfairly target innocent individuals’ personal liberty. The fact that the Home Office guidance that accompanies the Bill also accepts that point is telling. However, it attempts to alleviate the concern by stating that it would not be
“unlawful to hold a private view in support of a terrorist organisation”;
it would be unlawful only to
“recklessly express those views, with the risk others could be influenced”.
I think that the Government will need to clarify what is meant by recklessly expressing a particular view. That seems to me to be an unnecessarily wide and vague phrase that will undoubtedly be tested later in the Bill’s progress.
There will always be a fine balance between giving the police, the security services and the judiciary enough powers to keep us safe, and liberty itself. Ultimately, it could be argued that, if we restrict our personal freedoms excessively, the terrorists have already won. The Government must tread very carefully, and engage fully not only with the Opposition, the Scottish Government and other Administrations, but with those who instinctively oppose any perceived restrictions of liberty.
The Scottish Government support giving law enforcement agencies and the intelligence services the necessary and proportionate powers that are required to fight terrorism. In the past, the UK Government have chosen not to engage with the Scottish Government before publishing Bills and guidelines on the issue. I am pleased that that has not happened in this instance. I also welcome last week’s telephone conversation with the Minister, but will he assure me that he will engage with the Scottish Government at every opportunity and throughout this process?
Keeping people safe is the primary function of any Government. By means of the Prevent strategy, the Scottish Government will continue to work with key partners to tackle all forms of violent extremism—for instance, through Police Scotland’s model of community engagement. Working with the Scottish Government will enable people to learn lessons about the range of positive work that Police Scotland and other agencies do in our local communities to keep people safe. The distinct Scottish approach to the delivery of Prevent benefits from the positive relationships that are fostered in our communities. That includes our work to develop a range of credible grassroots community-led projects that help to challenge extremist narratives, giving support and guidance to people who are potentially vulnerable to radicalisation.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman’s description of the “distinct Scottish approach” to Prevent sounded exactly like what Prevent is supposed to do. Will he elaborate on the difference between the Scottish version of Prevent—which he apparently fully supports, unlike Labour Front Benchers—and the English version?
Gavin Newlands
I think that it is a resource issue. In Scotland, resources are invested to ensure that the necessary community engagement takes place and there is support for the policy in the community. At present, that is not always the case south of the border.
John Woodcock
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no difference whatsoever between English Prevent and Scottish Prevent, that it is purely a resource issue, and that he does not share the view of Labour Front Benchers that the policy should be changed?
Gavin Newlands
I have to say that I am no expert on the delivery of the Prevent strategy in England. I represent a Scottish constituency, and I speak on behalf of the Scottish National party.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman said that the Scottish approach was distinct.
Gavin Newlands
It is distinct in terms of its success, in comparison with the success of the strategy as it currently operates south of the border.
Gavin Newlands
I have already outlined in what way.
The Scottish Government recognise that resilient communities which look out for one another are key in keeping people safe and, furthermore, that communities are our greatest ally in that respect. We must ensure that the Bill takes account of the separate and distinct Scottish legal system, respecting the current devolution settlement, and is proportionate and appropriate for Scotland.
I nearly got through an entire speech without mentioning it, but a potential threat to our national security is, of course Brexit, and the loss of access to multilateral information-sharing tools that we face. Organised crime and terrorism do not respect borders, and it is essential for Police Scotland to have continued access to the information systems, support and technical expertise that are available through Europol—not only to keep Scotland safe, but to contribute to making Europe safer through cross-border collaboration. I fear that, after the UK leaves the EU, there will be a major risk that any new arrangements will be sub-optimal in comparison with those that exist at present. I hope that the Minister will give a guarantee that any new legislation will be prepared in time to fill any gaps that arise from our leaving the EU, and that he will explain, as far as possible, how he intends to ensure that that happens. We need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can retain the level of access to Europol that they currently enjoy.
Let me end by saying that 2017 was a difficult year for the UK, and we owe it to everyone affected by last year’s attacks to work together on this important Bill to give our law enforcement agencies necessary and proportionate powers to eliminate and to prevent terrorism without eroding vital civil liberties.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands).
We meet in the shadow of a grim situation for our country. As the shadow Home Secretary said, in 2017, 36 people were killed and, since 2013 alone, some 25 terrorist plots have been foiled. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my constituents at GCHQ, who through their hard work, dedication and professionalism have, I feel sure, contributed to the foiling of a good number of those plots both in the UK and overseas.
I entirely support the Bill, but it is absolutely right, and the duty of the Opposition and all Back Benchers, to scrutinise these matters with great care. I sense the same spirit in this House this evening as there was when it dealt with the Investigatory Powers Act 2016: a spirit of constructive discussion, and at times criticism, to ensure that the provisions we arrive at strike the balance between liberty and security. I remember being in the House listening to discussions on the Investigatory Powers Bill. I am entirely sure that the end statute was better for the process of debate that took place in this House.
I want to examine some of the provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill and explain why it is appropriate. In simple terms, the Bill serves to clarify existing measures, to extend in a common-sense way their provisions, and in appropriate circumstances to modestly strengthen penalties. I will deal with those three headings and explain why in my view the provisions are justified.
The Bill seeks to
“clarify that the existing offence of displaying in a public place an image which arouses reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation covers the display of images online”
as well as in the analogue world. That is appropriate. It clarifies the position and for the position to be otherwise would make a nonsense of the digital world we are in, so I anticipate that that will not be controversial in Committee.
However, I want to deal with the point raised by the shadow Home Secretary about extending the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation to cover expressions of support that are reckless as to whether they will encourage others to support the organisation. The concern has been raised that moving the mens rea from intention to mere recklessness risks broadening the ambit of the offence too greatly. It is absolutely right to have this discussion because it would be a matter of grave concern if we inadvertently broadened an offence so that it unintentionally caught people within it that we were not comfortable being caught within it. Having thought about it, however, my view is this provision is on the right side of the line and I will explain why.
Let us suppose the facts were as follows. The defendant deliberately went to his friend’s house from school and said, “I really think you should be joining this proscribed organisation”—be it Isis or al-Muhajiroun—and his intention was to get that individual to sign up, but in the room at the same time was his friend’s younger brother, aged 16, and he was not in any way intending for that younger brother to be radicalised but was being reckless as to whether that would happen. In those circumstances, if the message was in fact heard by the younger brother rather than the contemporary friend, should the law have this loophole so that the defendant could not be liable in those circumstances? That would be nonsense. It would create an unconscionable loophole because the mischief at which the legislation is aimed is the propagating of propaganda material that encourages others to support proscribed organisations.
Sir Edward Davey
I agree that we should be debating these issues, but can the hon. Gentleman point to anywhere in case law where there is real development of the concept of recklessness compared with the concept of intentionality?
Alex Chalk
That is pretty much everywhere, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example. How about an allegation of assault? Let us suppose the defendant goes out in the high street in Kingston in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency with a baseball bat and starts swinging it around outside the pub, being reckless about whether someone might be struck by it. If he does recklessly strike someone’s jaw and they have a fractured jaw, the defendant can, and will in those circumstances, be convicted of a section 20 offence of grievous bodily harm. So the law does recognise that where there is recklessness, that can be sufficient mens rea for a large number—probably even the majority—of offences against the person. So to that extent all this measure would do is make sure the new legislation chimes with existing legislation.
The second provision I want to deal with has already properly been discussed: to
“update the offence of obtaining information likely to be useful to a terrorist to cover terrorist material that is just viewed or streamed over the internet, rather than downloaded to form a permanent record”.
First, we need to consider what material is being addressed here. It could be digital copies of “Inspire”, an online publication produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. One edition of that publication contains material giving instructions about how to make a bomb using household materials; these are step-by-step instructions on how to manufacture an improvised explosive device with materials that we could buy in a hardware store and a regular supermarket. That is extremely serious and dangerous material if it gets into the wrong hands. Another example of the kind of material published in these online magazines is instructions on how to wreak the maximum amount of destruction using a vehicle in a crowded area.
To be caught by current provisions, such material has to be downloaded, but that creates a loophole because an individual who chooses to view this pernicious content by simply restreaming it could be outside the net. That would be ridiculous, particularly as every time one of these items is streamed, it will create digital artefacts on the computer. So an individual who downloads it—who has the full digital content on their computer—is liable to be prosecuted, but an individual who keeps streaming it, notwithstanding that that leads to some digital artefacts on their computer, would be outside the net. That would be truly perverse.
So while it is right to say that we should be mindful of the risk of people coming within the ambit of this provision, so long as the defence of reasonable excuse exists, we can be confident that that proper balance is struck.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not a liberal on any of these issues, but there is a problem with this. One difficulty the security services face is dealing with the amount of material that is out there and targeting the right people. If someone who has viewed such material three times can be pulled in by this provision, does that not throw the net rather wide, making it more difficult for law enforcement to target the right people?
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that question, but I do not think that is the case. We accept that an individual deciding to view this material online and then download it on to their computer so that they can watch it at their leisure three times commits an offence—and we do so because terrorist offences often escalate quickly from the viewing of such materials. Given that we accept that, would it not be perverse to say that an individual who simply views this material three times—and while doing so takes account of the instructions in that material to build a bomb or wreak havoc with a vehicle—would be outside the law? That would be a bizarre anomaly, and it would say more about the digital habits of that individual than the pernicious nature of the content. So while we should always be mindful of the point the right hon. Gentleman makes, in my view the risks of doing nothing simply leave open huge loopholes that terrorists, who are increasingly digitally savvy, can exploit, so this is a proportionate and appropriate step to take.
Alex Chalk
I am not going to give way again on that point.
If I may, I will move on to the issue of increasing the maximum penalty. At the moment, the maximum penalty under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is just 10 years’ imprisonment. The Bill proposes to increase that to 15 years. It is important to make the point that, certainly until the recent sentencing guidelines increase, someone pleading guilty to being in possession of material that might be of assistance to a person planning an act of terrorism could expect to be sentenced to just 14 or 15 months and to be released in seven months. We have to recognise, when we are dealing with these kinds of offences, that part of the necessity for the legislation is to ensure that dangerous people are kept out of circulation. In those particulars, this proposal is necessary and proportionate.
Elsewhere in the Bill, there are common-sense extensions including the proposal to add terrorism offences to the list of offences for which an individual can be subjected to a serious crime prevention order. That makes perfect sense, because SCPOs enable the authorities to continue to manage an individual convicted of a terrorism offence. In the interest of balance, it is important to note that the proposed legislation also contains protections for individuals. For example, it introduces a statutory bar on the admissibility as evidence in a criminal trial of oral admissions made in an examination at a port under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act, so it would be wrong to get the impression that this is one-way traffic. Overall—certainly so far as part 1 is concerned—these measures serve to clarify and to extend in a way that chimes with common sense. They update the law, and they will lead to a modest strengthening of penalties, which is a calibrated, proportionate and modernising approach that I am happy to support.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), and I echo the spirit of consensus in which he began his contribution. I wish to speak exclusively to the extension of terror reinsurance in clause 19 in chapter 4 of the Bill. This crucial clause might appear under the miscellaneous provisions, but it offers a significant opportunity to protect businesses and people from future attacks, as well as helping those who have already experienced an attack.
The Home Secretary is no longer in the Chamber, but I would like to thank him for his kind words about my own work over the past 12 months. I speak as the representative of a constituency and community that was attacked last year in the attack on London Bridge and Borough market on 3 June. I do not wish to dwell on the barbaric and savage motives of those attackers, but clause 19 links directly to the statements from the Prime Minister and other Ministers at the time about not letting the terrorists win and about how we can combat their motives and their potential to change our way of living and working.
I would like to extend my thanks to Bishop Christopher, the Bishop of Southwark, who sits in the other place here, to the dean of Southwark cathedral, Andrew Nunn, and to their whole team for their efforts over the past year and in particular for hosting such a moving commemorative service last week. It focused on the people who had been directly affected, including the loved ones of the eight people murdered last June and those who were injured. It also provided a sense of purpose for now and the future by planting a new tree of life, whose growth will be fuelled by the compost from the flowers laid by well-wishers on London Bridge last year. That symbol of ongoing life and vibrancy in the area is genuinely well conceived and was delivered very sensitively last week. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for attending last week’s service. I should also like to thank Southwark Council’s leader, Peter John, and its chief executive, Eleanor Kelly, for providing space on the bridge for a minute’s silence and for more flower-laying last week.
In the service, the sentiments of the local community came through very strongly. There was a sense that we must continue living our lives, but also that something had dramatically changed. A community project was run after the attacks for people to provide their own testimony and personal experience, and the words of one local resident were echoed by the Home Secretary last week. That person said that
“the terror attack changed this neighbourhood forever but not in the way the terrorists had planned. This community is going to carry on being diverse, inclusive and welcoming.”
That sentiment was echoed when the cathedral was reopened by the Archbishop of Canterbury after the attack. He stated that the terrorists had unwittingly created a “renewed sense of community”, and that is very much something that I have felt and seen in the past 12 months.
My community stood tall last year. The immediate response was incredible. The police and the NHS deserve our thanks and praise for their incredible efforts, as do the extraordinary individual people who stepped in to prevent others from being attacked and to confront the terrorists directly, putting their own safety at risk. Taxi drivers provided free transport out of the area to those who were worried. Local people opened their doors to complete strangers to allow them to charge their phones or to give them refuge, and hotels and local businesses offered overnight shelter. In the ensuing days, the public response was also incredible. Public donations of almost £50,000 were received, and support of a similar level was received from businesses. Practical support was given by Barclays on Borough High Street, which provided office space to people who could not access their own premises. Even the British Transport police opened up their counselling service to those who had been traumatised by what they had seen.
In the weeks after the reopening, the solidarity within the local community was also incredible. Businesses such as News UK and Merger Market provided vouchers to staff worth tens of thousands of pounds to use at Borough market. Southwark Council provided rates relief of more than £100,000, and Sadiq Khan freed up £300,000 from City Hall to help the local community. The funding was administered by United Saint Saviour’s, a brilliant local charity with a long history of helping the local community.
Those responses were much-needed. The attackers could not have known what a huge outpouring of solidarity they would trigger. The attack might have lasted for no longer than eight minutes, thanks to the extraordinary efforts and heroism of the police, but the cordon and the investigation closed the area for 10 days, affecting 150 local businesses. Many people will be familiar with Borough market, but it is not just a place that provides bits and bobs and personal groceries. The market has been there for 1,000 years, and tonnes of produce come into the market daily. It supplies restaurants and hotels across the capital and far beyond, and tonnes of produce were lost during the closure after the attack. Contracts to supply other restaurants were lost. Bookings at restaurants were lost. The London Bridge Experience was also directly affected and lost bookings.
The total bill for those 150 businesses is estimated to be more than £2 million. I shall give the House a couple of examples. Cannon and Cannon, a wholesaler of British charcuterie, lost about £11,000, but it was able to access compensation. Turnips, the fruit and veg distributor, lost nearly £100,000 as a direct result of the attack and the closure. Its insurer is Aviva, and Aviva has not paid out despite repeated requests to reconsider. It stands out in this regard, sadly, because it is the only insurer that has not responded with flexibility. It is the only insurer to have badly let down the local community, and I hope that its shareholders are aware of its terrible response. It is an insult to British values in the exceptional circumstances following the attack. I should add that many other insurers, including AXA, RSA and Zurich, worked flexibly to provide help, and I am grateful for their advice and support.
I should also like to thank the British Insurance Brokers Association and the Association of British Insurers for all their help over the past 12 months. I did not know about this particular area before. They all accept that clause 19 is needed, and they have worked together to get the Government to this point. Many of those organisations had already raised concerns, and I believe that the Treasury was warned about two and a half years ago. Sadly, the warnings were not heeded. The insurance challenge was recognised, as is clear from the briefings for this debate and the Home Office Bill briefing. The Government-backed pool reinsurance system set up in the 1990s covers only physical damage and not business interruption resulting from investigations into terror attacks.
I welcome the fact that the clause will close that loophole, but the Government are planning only for future incidents, despite the fact that the explanatory notes to the Bill make specific reference to Borough market and the difference that this measure could have made to those affected in my constituency last year. The Home Office has stated that this clause will not be used to help those who were so badly affected last June, and that is a bitter pill to swallow. I find it difficult to understand.
I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter and allow retrospective coverage for all of 2017, and I do so for four key reasons. First, my constituency needs it. London Bridge and Borough market need it. If it had not been for public donations, firms and jobs would have been at risk, and Treasury revenue was at risk. The owners of one microbusiness even had their home mortgage covered as a result of public donations. That situation did not need to happen.
Secondly, despite the public response, the Government were not there last year, and I find that shocking. The Prime Minister visited and showed the Australian Prime Minister around, a Business Minister came and met employers directly, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury’s predecessor held a meeting here for some of the affected businesses. However, not a penny of central Government support came to help my local community, and clause 19 represents a chance to rectify that absence from 2017.
Thirdly, the fact that the Government were warned of the need to close the loophole, but failed to do so, is justification enough for retrofitting this scheme now with this clause. My local firms and employers were unacceptably exposed to that loophole.
Finally, Pool Re, the Government scheme, has the funds. There would be no cost to the Treasury, to insurers or to taxpayers for retrofitting coverage for last year. It is simply wilful negligence to deny help to an area so badly hit when the finances are there to allow support.
I close with a plea to the Government to extend cover to last year. I welcome clause 19, but I want coverage to be retrofitted. I hope that Ministers will be sympathetic to that aim as the Bill goes through Committee, in which I hope to participate.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Since this is the first time that I have seen you since the weekend, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by congratulating you on your damehood? I am sure that it is much deserved.
The Bill follows up on the 2017 Queen’s Speech and reviews our approach to counter-terrorism. Its specific purpose is to amend certain terrorism offences to update them for the digital age, to reflect contemporary patterns of radicalisation and to close gaps. I will comment first on the potential for the prison system to add to radicalisation. I am a member of the Justice Committee, and we have never made a prison visit without raising the question of the radicalisation of prisoners, which is everywhere in the prison system. The prison officers we speak to are trying their best to deal with it, but there is great difference in the levels of success. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was right to refer to the issue, which we ought to be taking seriously and considering carefully to ensure that everything is taken into account.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend knows that the Bill contains provisions to lengthen both the period that prisoners serve and the length of sentence for certain terrorist offences. Is he worried that that will mean that terrorists will serve more time in prison and have more time to radicalise other prisoners?
John Howell
I thank my hon. Friend. In fact, in my notes for this debate I have written next to my previous point “so they will be more radicalised by spending more time in prison.” By extending prison sentences, we run the risk that prisoners will be more susceptible to the influences that will affect the radicalisation process. We need to address that matter in total from the beginning.
I was pleased to be able to intervene on the Home Secretary to get him to confirm that the Bill aims to reduce the risk from terrorism to the UK’s interests overseas. That fits in with the Contest strategy, to which the explanatory notes refer. I point to the UK’s enormous commercial interests in many parts of the world, including the middle east and Israel, that are under threat from terrorist activity. Those in Israel are under particular threat of terrorism from Lebanon. As we have discussed on many occasions, Hezbollah has long insisted that its military and non-military activities are indivisible. At the al-Quds Day rally this weekend, we saw the waving of flags of the alleged non-military wing of Hezbollah, but Hezbollah in its entirety meets the test for full proscription, which would then make it subject to the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister for Security and Economic Crime will refer to that in his summing up and mention whether an amendment to the Bill might proscribe the whole of Hezbollah. That would certainly send a strong message that, together with America, Canada and the Netherlands, we abhor terrorism in any form. It would also recognise that terrorist attacks on British interests overseas must be taken into account.
The Bill rightly points to the need to amend terrorist offences to update them for the digital age, as I said, and the need to then keep them updated. The reaction to terrorism is international, and if the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism is to mean anything, we need international co-operation and international action. If an individual commits a terrorist offence in a foreign country, they should be liable under UK law as if they had committed the offence in the UK. The explanatory notes refer to the Council of Europe’s convention, and I hope that this is last debate on this subject that does not mention the Council and its role in producing that convention. We are part of the Council of Europe—we were a founding member—and it plays an enormous role in sorting out such issues across Europe. Terrorism is a major subject for the Council of Europe, and during debates there I have been critical of the approach taken, for example, by the Belgian Government, who did not take the necessary steps to prevent terrorist activity on their own soil.
We can learn a lot from the international comparisons that we see at the Council of Europe, and I will provide a couple of examples. First, we could limit the finances of Daesh, which uses the internet to gain money and move it about. The Council has considered ways of preventing such movement. Secondly, the Council has considered cyber-attacks, which can have an enormous impact on the UK. A cyber-attack on an air traffic control system would cause absolute havoc, for example. I am also sure that everyone will agree with the Council of Europe’s “Terrorism: #NoHateNoFear” campaign.
In many ways, the opening paragraphs of the convention on the prevention of terrorism anticipate what is in the Bill, stating that no terrorist act can be justified by
“political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious”
considerations—there are no excuses for terrorism. Whatever the purpose behind an act of terrorism, we must ensure that we respect the rule of law, democracy and human rights, because otherwise we become just like the terrorists. That is a difficult thing for western democracies to do, but unless we do it, we are no better than the terrorists, and I hope we are considerably better than them.
We cannot do away with the values we hold dear in order to fight terrorism. The convention on the prevention of terrorism makes much of the need for international co-operation, and it encourages the public to provide factual help. I commend the Council of Europe’s excellent work to influence the sort of line we in the UK are taking in putting forward a strategy that is convincing in dealing with terrorism while having the necessary effect to make that help happen.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I have enjoyed listening to a range of contributions this afternoon and this evening. A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), have referred to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, the Second Reading of which was on the day when Adrian Ismay, a constituent of mine, died having been subject to an under-car booby-trap bomb 11 days earlier. It was a dissident republican-inspired terrorist attack. Although the need for this Bill clearly comes from Islamic-inspired terrorism and from a change of thought, emphasis and deed in this part of our United Kingdom, I want to mention that we have not passed the worst days in Northern Ireland. There are still those who wish to use the worst messages of terrorism to change the political outlook, to change the determination of our people and to destroy our country. It is important to say that at the start of the Bill’s passage.
I will mention just three issues, two that are specifically outlined in the Bill and one, which is not considered at all in the Bill, that I would like the Minister to engage with thoughtfully. Other Members who have had the pleasure or misfortune of participating in a Public Bill Committee may know more than me about them—I have never sat on a Public Bill Committee—but I would be delighted to do so and get involved in some of these issues. Members who have sat on Public Bill Committees tell me that I am mad and that it would be the worst thing to put myself forward for, but there are provisions in the Bill that it would be incredibly useful to have the opportunity to explore in greater depth.
We need to be careful about how we proceed with the plans on border security outlined in the Bill. Although I am a Brexit-supporting Member, I think it would be irresponsible of us to consider these provisions without having at least some cognisance of the issues raised by Brexit when it comes to border security. When the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, raised her points earlier, the Secretary of State was right to indicate that schedule 3 emulates what is already provided for in the Terrorism Act 2000. That legislative provision has been in place for the past 18 years, and the only difference I can see is that, whereas the 2000 Act focuses on terrorism, schedule 3 covers “hostile acts” and talks about state party actors. I assume that is the main difference.
The most important border security provision is in paragraph 4 of schedule 3 to the Bill and in paragraph 2(4) of schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, which relates to section 40(1)(b) of that Act. Under those provisions it does not matter whether there is reasonable suspicion of engagement in terrorism or hostile activity. Both the 2000 Act and this Bill go to extraordinary lengths to outline what is meant by “terrorism,” “hostile acts,” “terrorist activity” and “state party activity,” and both pieces of legislation specifically indicate to the border officials who are asked to operate them that it does not matter whether they have reasonable grounds for suspicion. The truth is that, in both the 2000 Act and this Bill, a border official does not need to have any suspicion at all of terrorism or hostile acts. To my mind, that cannot be right.
When we consider the checks that will happen, this Bill and the 2000 Act specifically talk about travel to and from Northern Ireland, to and from Great Britain and between different parts of this United Kingdom—from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and from the top of Great Britain to the bottom of Great Britain—but no reasonable suspicion whatever is required for a person to be stopped, questioned and potentially searched by one of our border officials.
I will not push the point much further now but, in the atmosphere created around border controls, whether on the island of Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, we need to consider this more thoughtfully. When our Scottish brethren, of whom the Security Minister is one, complained during the 2014 referendum that it was inappropriate for a UK citizen from Scotland, when travelling to a UK airport in England, to be stopped and questioned, the answer was, “Well, this House voted for it in the Terrorism Act 2000.”
The common travel area does not allow for a person to be stopped and checked for citizenship or to be asked about their right to travel. When that happens to people travelling from Belfast to Birmingham, it is an affront to UK citizens that they are stopped by a Border Force official. Those stops, those checks and those questions, offensively, are conducted under anti-terrorism legislation, and this Bill gives us the opportunity to thoughtfully consider whether that is really what we want in this country. I will never tie the hands of a Government who want to protect us from terrorists, but is it appropriate that an average citizen from one part of the United Kingdom travelling to another part of the United Kingdom is stopped under anti-terrorism legislation? I do not think it is, and I hope that is something we can thoughtfully consider as the Bill proceeds.
Clause 7 will make terrorist connections an aggravating factor in committing another offence, and it is wonderful that Northern Ireland is being included in that provision. I am not sure why we were left out of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008—I am sure there was good reason, following political discussions in 2007, but it was not right. When a person is perceived or known to be associated with a terrorist organisation, be it an Islamist group, some other fundamentalist group or an organisation originating in Northern Ireland, whether connected to loyalism or republicanism, it is appropriate that that serves as an aggravating factor.
But again I raise the question: how does the Minister believe prosecutors will be able to convince a court that an individual has a terrorist connection? I know from my experience of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, and from my experience both as a barrister and as a politician, that it is extraordinarily difficult to ask a court to accept that a person has a terrorist connection unless, as part of either that prosecution or a previous prosecution, they have been convicted of that offence. I make the gentle point to the Minister that this undermines community confidence in policing and security in this country. People know that a provision is on the statute book saying that an association with terrorism should be an aggravating factor in sentencing. They may know as the dogs in the street know—that is what they say in Belfast—that someone is associated with or involved in paramilitarism, yet there will be no motion in court for that individual to be sentenced for an aggravating offence. Why is that? It is because either there will be an unwillingness to prove it or an inability to do so. The unwillingness will stem from our security services not wishing to share the intelligence that they have in open court. Colin Duffy walks the streets of Lurgan in Northern Ireland because of an unwillingness on the part of the judiciary in Northern Ireland to allow intelligence to remain private. Dissident republicans who have terrorised and tortured our society to this day, and are still intent on destroying Northern Ireland and taking us out of this United Kingdom, walk the streets today because of the inability to present intelligence in open court. The judiciary have said, “If you can’t do it, don’t bring it to us. If you are not prepared to show it openly, don’t bring it to us.”
So although it is wonderful that we are being included in this provision for the first time in 10 years, because Northern Ireland did not feature in this as part of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, I would like to know—I would be keen to engage with the Minister on this—just how this provision will proceed through an open court process and how such prosecutions will be made. Without going into the details, because of sub judice rules, let me say that there are cases at the moment where individuals are being prosecuted in Northern Ireland because of how they signed off a text message with a Latin phrase, “quis separabit”, which means “who shall separate us?” It is the motto of a proscribed organisation in Northern Ireland. Is that as far, without divulging intelligence, as prosecutors are going to go to try to satisfy this provision of
“membership of a proscribed organisation”
or an association with such an organisation? If it is, although it is great to be included in this provision, I suspect that no sentence given in a court in Northern Ireland will ever benefit from an aggravating feature and, thus, an increase. So I look forward to having the opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss this further.
The final part of my contribution seeks to bring to the attention of Members section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which dealt with encouraging support for terrorism or the glorification of it. When it was put forward in 2005 and enacted in 2006, there was some discussion not only about “encouraging” people to engage in terrorism, but about the glorification of past offences, and a 20-year limit was put on such provision. That was not done in the legislation; it was spoken about openly and formed part of the guidance to police services. The approach was, “It is okay to glorify terrorist crimes as long as they were more than 20 years ago.” That cannot be right and I hope the Minister will accept amendments to this Bill, be it in Committee or on Report, that will rectify that situation. It is appalling that people who are intent on removing life and destroying our society can legally eulogise such vile acts. I do not need to make that point from my perspective—from a Northern Ireland perspective—because we are seven years off 20 years since the 7/7 bombings. Does anyone in this Chamber think it would be appropriate for any group in this country to memorialise or eulogise the perpetrators of that vile act? We are seven years away from the potential for that happening, if the “20-year” guidance is accepted on historical acts under the 2006 Act. We should thoughtfully consider that.
Let me give the example of D company, an IRA company in Belfast who parade through its streets each and every year. They dress in paramilitary-style clothing. They wear black berets, black sunglasses, smocks over their faces and military jackets. They have flags, bands and replica arms. They are glorifying acts of terrorism. The Northern Ireland Office is responsible for a body called the Parades Commission, but does it even deem those parades sensitive, let alone ban them for breaching counter-terrorism legislation? No, it does not. It takes no interest in these parades. When we think about whether historical acts have the potential to glorify or not, we should consider this quotation from D company’s 2017 main speaker:
“British rule was wrong in 1916 and it remains wrong today in 2017. Let no one tell you different!”
D company of the IRA in west Belfast was one of the most notorious. It is attaching itself to the events in 1916 and it was responsible for historic acts during the troubles. It is making the connection very clear under the terms of the 2006 Act, saying that the same principles that applied then applied in 2017. If that is not a glorification of previous activities or an encouragement to others to recognise that the conditions under which they “proudly volunteered”—that is their view—equally apply today, and if that is not an “encouragement” under this legislation, I do not know what is. When those responsible for the Shankill bombing unveil a memorial 20 years to the day after carrying out that heinous act in 1993, we have a problem with legislation that tries to account for an historic act that cannot be seen as glorification or an encouragement. I raise this issue in hope, and I draw the analogy because not only have we had horrendous acts in the past year here in England, but we are not going to have to wait too long until it is 20 years after the 7/7 attacks. If Members in this Chamber are as horrified as I am at the prospect that such acts could be lawfully, sensibly eulogised in our society, this Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about it.
I want to thank the Minister, because he has engaged with us over the past weeks, and we have had the opportunity for briefings. I hope that during this Second Reading debate and in Committee we will get the opportunity to shape this Bill so that it does provide what we need to counter terrorism in all its forms in this country.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), particularly as at least an element of my speech would have exhibited a degree of naivety without his. I will continue with it, but I think I should apologise for it in advance. The purpose of the first part of my speech was to juxtapose my experience of terrorism in this country with what was happening with regard to the IRA and its activities in this country. Part of my premise is that, after the Good Friday agreement we are in a position where any occurrences that happen in Northern Ireland make the news in a considerably lower-level format than they would have done during my time growing up. So it is almost easy to believe, viewing Northern Ireland from a distance, that all is well over there, peace has broken out and the world is a good place, whereas, the incident mentioned at the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech clearly proves that that is not the case.
I was drawn towards making this comparison because it is my 50th birthday this year, the troubles started in 1968 and I wanted to talk about my experience of how they had an impact on us in this country over that time. I am not old enough to remember this, but in 1972 we might have had the first cynical ceasefire that the IRA announced over the Christmas period, and yet only a short time later we had the bombings in Birmingham.
I fully appreciate that nobody has been convicted of those bombings in Birmingham, so it is not possible for us to say so with a degree of certainty or to attribute the cause to it, but I would say that we are fairly comfortable in knowing that the IRA was responsible, and many people lost their lives at that time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern of those of us on this side of the Chamber within our party, and perhaps further afield, who see glorification in a play park in Newry being named after an IRA volunteer who was involved in a campaign of murder and terrorism, and in Gaelic Athletic Association clubs naming their venues and locations after IRA men and IRA women who have been involved in terrorist activity? Does he share our concern about glorification of their activities, which, hopefully, the Bill has the power to change—making it unlawful so that it cannot happen?
Eddie Hughes
I absolutely do share those concerns, and I sincerely hope that the Bill presents the opportunity to prevent that from happening. The hon. Member for Belfast East made the comparison that if we were to experience something similar in this country we would all think it an abomination, yet clearly, that is what is happening over in Northern Ireland.
Let us move through that period to come to a comparison that I want to make. In 1996 the IRA exploded in Manchester what I understand was the biggest bomb to be exploded on the mainland since the second world war—a 1,500 lb bomb. Fortunately, 90 minutes’ notice was given, and the excellent work of the emergency services allowed 75,000 people to be evacuated, although, unfortunately, those services were unable to defuse the bomb and I understand that 200 people were injured when it went off.
The cost of that bomb runs to the equivalent today of approximately £1.2 billion, I believe, but how this country responds to that sort of situation is to be celebrated. In 1996, England was hosting the European football championships. The following day, Germany was due to play Russia. That game proceeded and turned into a celebration of the fact that countries around the world would not be oppressed by terrorism and actually joined together in a celebration that said, “Terrorism will not win.”
Compare and contrast that with the bombing in Manchester last year. An Ariana Grande concert was targeted with the perpetrator knowing full well that parents would be there with very young children. It was completely despicable. My understanding is that the perpetrator, who was also killed in that attack, had been to Libya and had some Libyan connections. To draw back to that parallel, clearly Libya has been a source of great difficulty given that association and its previous association with the IRA over the suggestion of the supply of arms and a fight against what was considered British imperialism.
We need to say that we are not going to accept terrorism and that we are going to do everything we can to ensure that our laws are tidied up to prevent it. An element of that, which I would like to celebrate, is biometric data. We should celebrate the fact that, many years ago, DNA was discovered in this country, and the double helix formation was subsequently identified, but it was not until 1984 that Sir Alec Jeffreys was able to realise the benefits of using DNA to profile people and help to determine the difference between pieces of evidence.
We should celebrate that because DNA profiling is now used by 120 countries around the world, and 54 of them have DNA databases. This technology is not only used to help to identify people who are guilty; it helps those who are innocent. Its first use was in a case just two years after its discovery. It was a case in Leicester, where somebody had admitted rape and murder only to have the DNA evidence prove that they were not responsible. Some time subsequently, Colin Pitchfork was identified as the murderer as a result of DNA evidence.
It is important that we realise the benefits of modern technology and the pace with which it can change. We need to ensure in this House that the law tracks those developments, because people can now be radicalised in their home in the UK by reading literature produced in other countries. We need to ensure that we act appropriately to prevent the dissemination of that sort of information. To return to the bomber in Manchester last year, that person acting alone, thanks to the internet and those illicit sources, had the opportunity to learn how to make a bomb using items that are freely available in this country. Without physical contact with other people, they were able to garner the information, be radicalised and carry out a dreadful act. It is surely essential that we do everything we can to tidy up the law in this country to prevent that.
I want to end with a quote I heard yesterday:
“The law is reason free from passion.”
Aristotle apparently said that. I think it is important that in this House we are not totally free from passion, that we remember these dreadful atrocities that have been committed and that we ensure that we have law that prevents them.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). I have sat here and listened to some thoughtful speeches. In particular, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) gave us a lot to think about on an issue that I had hoped the Home Secretary would cover in his opening remarks—the new provision on encouragement, effectively, of terrorism through statements that fall short of specifically inciting support for proscribed terrorist organisations. This is a really important provision, as the hon. Gentleman set out cogently in relation to Northern Ireland.
This is a difficult subject to raise, but I am brought back to remarks made in the past by Members who sit on the Labour Benches, some when they were MPs. We have the man who would be Chancellor of the United Kingdom having apparently, in 1986, praised the ballot, the bomb and the bullet. That is deeply, deeply serious. If my understanding of the new legislation is right, had it been in place at the time that that Member apparently made those remarks, he would have been guilty of a terrorist offence. Is the Minister able to share his understanding on that, or is he going to let me raise the matter alone? This is a serious matter in and of itself, but how wide-ranging these new powers could be deserves great thought from Members who will consider the Bill in Committee.
I want to spend a little time talking about the case of Ethan Stables, a young man from Barrow, aged 20, who has just been committed under existing terrorism legislation. On 23 June last year, Ethan Stables posted on Facebook that he was going to war, that he was preparing for a slaughter and planning to attack a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Pride event at the New Empire pub. Fortunately, those posts were immediately seen by someone local. The alarm was raised and he was picked up by the police as he was walking to the New Empire pub. He was convicted of terrorism offences. It was found that he had a machete and knives in his home, that he was a neo-Nazi sympathiser and that he had googled things such as “I want to go on a killing spree” and “What is prison like for a murderer?” Clearly, the signs were all there. There is a separate question about why it took so long to pick up Mr Stables. He was literally on the verge of attacking people who were celebrating a community event in the New Empire pub. If the legislation had been in place, the fact that Mr Stables had repeatedly viewed violent videos online and looked at how to download and create his own bombs, would have made him guilty of an offence long before he got to the stage of actively planning. That in itself is surely a reason to welcome this new legislation.
The case of Mr Stables raises the wider question of resources. It is all very well having the offences in place, but the Government will need to explain how they will be able to secure prosecutions earlier on in the process, rather than finding a reason, once someone has been apprehended for other reasons, to go through their viewing history.
It is my understanding that there is no requirement, or indeed any legal possibility at the moment, for internet companies such as YouTube routinely to provide the IP addresses of people who have viewed banned material more than three times, which would make them subject to criminal action under this terrorist legislation. I am talking about videos which would potentially see YouTube found guilty of a criminal offence, or certainly a civil offence, if it kept them up after having being warned about them. Will the Minister address that matter in his summing up? Will he consider bringing that forward so that there is potential to catch more people who are online at the time they are doing this, rather than as part of some retrofitting?
The Home Affairs Committee took evidence last week from the Met police commissioner, Cressida Dick. She was quite clear about the scale of pressure that her resources are under, even at present. She went through a number of areas, including, of course, counter-terror, where more resource was needed and where the amount available was inadequate at the time. Yet this legislation creates a new tranche of offences, which, unless the Minister can explain otherwise, will not be sufficiently resourced to be properly policed.
The other major omission, which the Minister will expect me to raise as we have been backwards and forwards on it both inside and outside the House for many months now, is on the issue of returning jihadis. It is good to get the recognition from the Home Secretary in this debate that he is considering introducing the Australian-style offence at the amendment stage. I can see no other way in which the Government will be able to get close to securing sufficient evidence to prosecute people who are returning from places such as Iraq, Syria or wherever the next terror hotspot is.
The Minister knows that I was able to interview at length someone who was being held in a removal centre in Izmir, Turkey on suspicion of supporting Daesh. She was being removed back to the UK on those grounds. There was a suspicion at the time about what would happen to the woman whom we interviewed. The very tough rhetoric that we hear from the Government, which is that we always seek to prosecute individuals, is not actually commensurate with being able successfully to prosecute individuals once they are here. Clearly, people are going over. They are travelling to Syria without a specific or verifiable reason, such as being part of aid work. They are clearly not going for a valid reason, yet, at the moment, we need verifiable proof, which is very hard to find, to be able to prosecute such people.
A number of us have repeatedly pressed the Government on this. The Minister can enlighten us all on this in his closing remarks if he wishes, but for many months now the Government have refused to give the number of people who have returned from Syria who have been successfully prosecuted. The response now is that those numbers are not quantified in that fashion. Well, they were quantified in May 2016, when the Advocate General, Lord Keen, in the other place gave a written response. Back then, he said that 54 people had been successfully prosecuted, with 30 ongoing cases. Clearly, it is possible to update the House on this and the Government are choosing not to do so. Our strong suspicion is that that is because so few are able to be prosecuted—
Mr Wallace
I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman. Approximately 40 have been prosecuted so far—either because of direct action they have carried out in Syria or, subsequent to coming back, linked to that foreign fighting.
John Woodcock
I thank the Minister very much for updating the House. I note that 40 is fewer than the 54, the number we apparently prosecuted, according to Lord Keen, in May 2016. I need to examine those figures to see why they are different. I am grateful that, after many months of pushing, the Minister has given us a figure of 40. As he will know, the Government have said that 400 have come back, so we have been able to prosecute successfully only one 10th of those people. That is very significant.
Ministers in response are now saying that a significant proportion of the people coming back are no longer of concern to the security services. That is as may be, and we want the number of people who are no longer of concern to be as high as possible, but that does not mean that they are innocent of terrorism charges. If they have been to Iraq or Syria, have been aiding Daesh, in whatever form, and they are British citizens and they are returning, they have been aiding enemies of the British state. They are people who are wanted for enacting violence on our civilians and on our armed forces and they should be able to be prosecuted, which is why the Australian-style legislation, the declared area offence, is a step forward. It would mean that anyone who has visited a designated terror hotspot without good reason—with declarations overseen by a judge—can be prosecuted for terror offences on their return. That would go a long way towards the deterrent effect that the Government understandably want to create to stop people from taking the crazy journey into war zones to support jihadi organisations that seek to destroy our way of life.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who made a thought-provoking speech. It was certainly interesting to hear references to one or two of his party’s Front Benchers, although it is probably better that I focus on the substance of the debate than on whether I agree with his comments.
It is important to discuss how to ensure that those who actively set out to support terrorists and organisations that wish to destroy democracy, rather than to engage in debate and democracy, feel the force of the criminal law. I am pleased that this Bill will update the legislation to reflect the fact that we are now in the internet era. However, we must temper this with ensuring that nobody can innocently fall foul of the offences. That can be considered in detail in Committee. I was reassured to hear the Home Secretary’s responses to a number of interventions on this point. He said that there will almost certainly be a reasonable excuse defence for those who might stumble on material or for those who might be engaged in research that we would want them to do and that is not connected to another intention.
I am conscious that these definitions need to be drawn fairly tightly to ensure that we do not create a loophole that could be used by someone just claiming that they were engaging in research. For example, we would need them actively to show that they were part of a recognised research project. I am sure that we can sensibly work out such matters when we discuss the Bill in detail. We must always ensure that our intention is clear in the legislation that we pass, rather than hoping that the courts will listen to what we have said. It is the wording of the legislation that courts will ultimately consider when making decisions about any defence.
I am very pleased with what I have heard. It is right that we end the position whereby the law is not necessarily brought into effect by people streaming material, especially given the explosion—figuratively, not literally—of available sources. People can now stream video to their mobile devices in particular, whereas they would have downloaded material from sharing sites in the past. It is also appropriate that the protections are in place to ensure that nobody is innocently caught by such offences.
It is appropriate that more significant sentences are available to the courts for the offences listed in the Bill. Those who are looking to take part in plots to cause significant loss of life should know about the sentencing powers available to the courts and that those powers will actually be used. I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) mention the possible sentence for someone who pleads guilty. This legislation is not just about everyone getting the maximum sentence, which is very unlikely to happen, but it will raise the bar for each person convicted or pleading guilty to such offences and ensure that they get time in prison that is commensurate with their offence, time in which it might also be possible for prisons to do useful work with them to turn them away from an extremist path.
We have debated Prevent. Ultimately, the motivation behind this type of behaviour does not matter. It could be the politics of the extreme left or right, or a totally perverted interpretation of a religion. I must be clear that in such cases of extremism or terrorism, the interpretation of the religion is always a perverted one. No religion genuinely backs the actions of extremists walking into a concert and blowing themselves up among women and children who are just enjoying the evening. We need provisions in place to turn people away from that path.
I have certainly found it interesting to listen to this debate. The public are clear that there should be increased sentencing provisions to allow the courts to deal with those who commit such offences. We have seen many stories over the past few years. In particular, I look back at the events of a year ago, when those who were hoping to use terror attacks to deflect from the general election campaign attacked innocent civilians. They hoped that they would somehow terrorise people to change policy or elect people to this place who might not agree with tackling such issues. In fact, all they did was strengthen the resolve of those of us who are democrats, as happened when this Parliament and its Members—some of whom are commemorated on the walls of this very Chamber—were under attack in the past. We were not deflected from our confidence in democracy then, and we will not be deflected in the 21st century from tackling those who wish to destroy democracy. We will ensure that those who believe that they can express views with impunity online that they would never think of expressing in another public forum know that the law will catch up with them.
Members have discussed the retention of materials, particularly fingerprints, as the shadow Home Secretary picked up on the point regarding biometric details. This issue clearly needs further detailed scrutiny and debate. I think that we would all say that there are legitimate intelligence grounds for the police keeping such details following an arrest in circumstances where particular conditions are met. We would not say that details should be destroyed immediately merely because an offence was not proceeded with. I accept that this needs to be balanced with the fact that those who are wholly innocent should not think that their data will always be on a database. For example, there may be a case of mistaken identity that leads to an arrest, or a piece of intelligence may be found leading to the discovery that someone is not, or is unlikely to be, guilty of an offence. It will be interesting to explore how this balance can struck in more detail in Committee. Clearly, it would not be sensible to throw away potentially valuable evidence that might at a later stage allow us to proceed on an offence, to prevent the commission of a further offence, or simply to identify someone. Again, we have to balance that against rights. The principle is right and the overall thrust of the Bill is correct in this matter, but we could explore it in more detail in Committee and on Report.
Overall, the Bill is timely. The threats against this country are growing—not just from non-state actors such as Daesh, but from rogue state actors who seek to engage in behaviour that few of us would have thought likely even a few years ago. The use of chemical weapons against two people on our soil would have been unimaginable only a decade ago. It is therefore right that our legislation is kept fully up to date. The Bill will allow the House and Parliament as a whole to review the legislation, look at it in more depth and produce an Act of Parliament that is firmly rooted in the digital era. In the past, we would have been talking about people displaying flags in public places as our main worry. Now it is about what people are displaying online, particularly under a false flag of a fake digital identity.
This has been a useful debate. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress. It has my support. It has been encouraging to hear the views from across the House that indicate that it is likely to receive cross-party support at this stage, subject to the further debate that we can have only by giving the Bill its Second Reading today.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I come to this debate wanting to be positive about attempts by the Government to give our police and security forces the powers that they need in the fight against terrorism and to balance that with the equal priority of ensuring that we do not hit our civil liberties and therefore give the terrorists a victory. Already we have heard how different aspects of this Bill will be judged by those tests.
No one who witnessed the horrors in London and Manchester last year can be in any doubt that we need to redouble our efforts to protect the public. The evidence is clear, and the terrorist threat across the UK remains severe. With that threat morphing into a diverse range of threats, including people acting alone, and with the numbers involved increasing, if anything, the terrorist threat for our security forces and the police is probably the most difficult it has ever been.
Liberal Democrats will not, at this early stage, seek to oppose this Bill, but Ministers and those watching this debate should not take that as agreement, in full or in part, to these proposed laws. We need to scrutinise the Bill to make sure that we get the balance right. It is already clear from this debate that there are serious questions whether some of these proposed laws are necessary, whether they are properly based on sound evidence and whether there are sufficient safeguards to prevent their being abused against totally innocent citizens. The Government may have a job in persuading this House and the other place that these measures should pass totally unamended in the form that we see them tonight.
In considering yet another piece of terrorism legislation, the House should recall the opinion of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Max Hill, when he was appointed just over a year ago. He said that he thought that the UK had sufficient offences in the fight against terrorism and that we did not need any more. In a speech in October last year, he said:
“I would suggest that our legislators have provided for just about every descriptive action in relation to terrorism, so we should pause before rushing to add yet more offences to the already long list.”
In his early comments on this Bill, he has gone on to say that
“the Counter-Terrorism Bill does not contain a single new terrorist offence.”
This assessment may seem at odds with what Ministers have sought to persuade the House that they are doing and with complaints by organisations such as Liberty. How Max Hill squares this circle is quite important. He believes that the Bill is only clarifying what is meant by existing offences. Let us see in debate whether it is simply a clarification or whether we are creating new offences.
Clause 3, which is about obtaining or viewing material over the internet, brings in the three click rule that we talked about earlier. The question for the House is whether we think that the line between committing a criminal offence punishable by years in prison is one extra click of a mouse, such that someone moves from innocent at two clicks to guilty at three. There is good reason for the House to scrutinise this, because it is about the intention behind the clicks as opposed to the clicks themselves.
On one level, it might seem reasonable to question the motives of someone who continually looks at violence and hate-inciting material. But what if the intention of that person was never one of pursuing actual terrorism? Perhaps they were a journalist; we have heard that there are protections for journalists. What if the person was so shocked and appalled by the material that they were drawn to look at it again, in their disapproval? We need to make sure that genuinely innocent people are not caught. I was quite pleased by the way that the Home Secretary responded to that point, because it did appear that he was open to genuine scrutiny of it. That is very welcome.
We need to make sure that we abide by the normal ways in which we approach free speech. We usually criminalise free speech only if there is an intention to promote harm, violence and hatred, or to carry out terrorist acts as a result of viewing the material. There is potentially a danger that this proposal crosses a line, so we need to look at it in detail.
In my early reading of these proposals, I have had a few other concerns. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) talked about how important biometric data can be, and he is absolutely right. However—he touched on this in a very thoughtful speech—there are issues of innocent people’s biometric data being retained, such as people who have never committed a crime or people who have been unlawfully or wrongly arrested. Should their DNA—their biometric data—be kept by the police? Possibly for a short period, but what will be the rules on checking that their civil liberties and rights are not constrained and that that biometric data is disposed of in a correct and verifiable way when it is clear that they have nothing to do with any such crimes?
I am not just worried about civil liberties in this regard; I am also worried about the impact on the Government’s negotiations for an EU-UK security partnership should Brexit actually happen. Ministers will know, whether from debates over the general data protection regulation or recent European Court of Justice rulings, that the UK may struggle to get an adequacy agreement from the Commission. The recent immigration data exemption from data rights such as subject access requests are very likely—rightly, to my mind—to be sounding alarm bells at the Commission. Yet it is super-vital to our fight against terrorism and against organised crime, vital for this country’s security, that the data flows between the UK and the rest of the EU, whether the data relates to the work of Europol, Prüm, ECRIS—the European criminal records information system—or the Schengen information system II. I am not sure whether the Government, with all the different things they are doing in this area, are presenting a very strong case to our EU colleagues. Will keeping the DNA of innocent EU citizens help our case for an adequacy agreement? Will the Minister say whether an assessment has been made of how this Bill will affect the UK’s chances of securing this vital adequacy agreement, so that we can keep those data flows going to get these wicked people?
My concern about safeguards relates to the way in which the Home Office often operates. In Westminster Hall this coming Wednesday, there will be a debate about section 22, paragraph 5 of the immigration rules, whereby they are used to refuse leave to remain in this country on the basis that the applicant is somehow a threat to national security. This immigration rule has been used when applicants have committed minor tax offences—conduct that was not foreseen when Parliament gave the Home Office these powers. When we debate new rules and new powers for officials, we have to make sure that there are safeguards so that they are not used for unintended purposes.
Let me move on to the Contest, or Prevent, strategy. The Home Secretary seemed rather complacent that all was well with this strategy. When we look at the perception and experience of some people, we might think that expanding referral rights to local authorities seems a terribly modest measure—I know that the Security Minister thinks so—but the question is, how it will be perceived? Although I am sure that the Minister believes that the measure is harmless, if it is based on the assumption that there are many communities out there who think that Prevent is fine, that is an incorrect assumption. For many communities, rightly or wrongly, Prevent is a flawed programme. As I said to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), this may be a matter of perception.
I absolutely accept that there are many successful individual projects and areas of work within the Prevent programme. No one can deny that. However, a long list of organisations inside and outside this House have pointed to how Prevent has alienated at least some communities. We should think about that before we act. The Home Affairs Committee has warned about this, as have the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the National Union of Teachers, Muslim community associations and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. All these people have expressed worries about how the Prevent programme is seen. Given those widely held concerns, I am surprised that the Government are choosing this moment to expand the programme.
Surely it would be far better to restore confidence and trust before involving people’s local council. Many of us would support an independent review of the Prevent strategy, as the shadow Home Secretary said, and I hoped that the Government’s Commission for Countering Extremism might lead on that. I hope that the Government will reflect on that matter further before pursuing it.
There are clauses in the Bill that one really welcomes, such as clause 19, through which the Government are attempting to improve the system of insurance against terrorist acts. We have heard other Members comment on that. I want the Minister to look specifically at the problems that small businesses and larger businesses involved in hiring and leasing vans and cars are getting into. This is a real concern for them, and I know they are lobbying the Treasury on it. After relatively recent changes in the law, those businesses face unlimited liability if the person who rented or leased a van goes on to use it to commit a terrorist act. Because of the unlimited liability, those businesses’ insurers are saying, “We’re not going to insure you.” If a whole sector is hit because it cannot get insurance, that is a huge problem for our whole economy and society. There may be industry and private sector solutions—I am told that there may be a mutual arrangement in the sector—but if that does not work out, the Bill may be a vehicle to tackle that problem, so that terrorists cannot undermine our economy indirectly in that way.
The last measures I would like to talk about are clauses 1 and 2. As we have heard, clause 1 extends the existing offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation, so that a person commits that offence if they show support for a proscribed organisation and are reckless in that expression of support. I intervened on the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) on the issue of recklessness, but he may have misunderstood me; he is not in his place, so he cannot respond. Clearly the concept of recklessness exists in law at the moment and is used particularly in relation to the actions that he cited. However, even judging whether people have behaved recklessly in physical acts of violence is pretty controversial, because it is not seen as terribly objective. Different interpretations of recklessness in relation to physical violence—the Caldwell and Cunningham versions—have been found by the courts. That test is much more difficult when applied to speech. If it is subjective with respect to actions, its subjectivity in terms of speech and the impact of that speech on other people seems very difficult to measure. We will have to look at that in some detail.
Clause 2 relates to how clothing might be linked to a proscribed organisation. My concern is how general the clause is. The Minister will know that there are 88 proscribed organisations. I think all of us would be extremely worried if people were going around with flags and encouraging people to join some of those organisations, but when was that list last looked at?
I will give one example from Sri Lanka that may be controversial among some Members. I think the last Labour Government were wrong to proscribe the LTTE, or the Tamil Tigers. It has committed some horrific acts and atrocities—there is no doubt about that—but it was involved in what many people regard as a civil war. In this country there are British Tamils who have become refugees and Sri Lankan asylum seekers who support the aims of the Tamil Tigers, but not its methods, and for them, it is a political movement. I have met young Tamils living in the UK who wear T-shirts bearing one of the emblems of the Tamil Tigers, which is a roaring tiger head with two rifles. I have refused their kind offer of such a T-shirt and have not worn one, but I do not think their offer of a T-shirt should be punishable by a prison term. Does the Minister think that wearing such a T-shirt of a proscribed organisation will result in the arrest of those people? Will individuals wearing clothing with Tamil Tiger emblems put their liberty in danger if the Bill is passed?
Those are the sorts of question we will have to subject the Bill to as it is debated. I know the Minister is a reasonable and thoughtful man who will want to avoid unintended consequences and injustices, and perhaps he will be able to satisfy us on the concerns we have raised this evening.
In concluding, I would simply like to quote from a letter to The Times last year signed by leaders of the legal professions and organisations such as Liberty and JUSTICE. They wrote:
“Suggestions made before the general election, that human rights prevent the police fighting terrorism, are misguided…Human rights exist to protect us all. Weakening human rights laws will not make us safer. Terrorists cannot take away our freedoms—and we must not do so ourselves.”
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is the first speech I have made in the House since your colleague, the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), received her damehood, may I, in her absence from the Chair, pay tribute to her?
There is nothing more important or more serious for this House to discuss than terrorist issues, because the terrorist seeks to destroy the fundamental rights enshrined in democracy by undemocratic means, which we must do all in our power to prevent.
Before I get on to the Bill, I want to address the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I totally take to heart what he said about the glorification of terrorist acts once they are, as it is called, time-expired. If I were a member of a family who had lost victims in terrorist incidents, I would feel utterly sick, and I hope that he will succeed in his aim of somehow amending the Bill to prohibit that practice. In saying that, I take to heart what he said about excesses by our military, but I think we owe it to the military—I do not suppose that this will form part of the Bill—to limit the time when a member of our armed forces can be prosecuted for events that took place while serving in a military campaign, including in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will somehow find a way to do that before too long.
As I mentioned in an intervention earlier, this debate takes place in the atmosphere that was described by Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5. On 17 October 2017, in a rare public speech by such an official, he described the ongoing terrorist threat as
“multi-dimensional, evolving rapidly, and operating at a scale and pace we’ve not seen”
from such threats. Indeed, in the year ending 31 December 2017, there were 412 arrests for terrorism-related offences in Great Britain, an increase of 58% on the 261 arrests in the previous year.
In his speech earlier, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said there have been 25 Islamic attacks since 2013, including four external plots since the Westminster atrocities. I therefore want to pay a sincere tribute to the police and the security and intelligence services, who often put their lives at risk in very difficult and dangerous circumstances to keep us all safe, and they do a terrific job. As if that were not enough, we then had the horrific attack on Yulia and Sergei Skripal, and indeed Sergeant Nick Bailey, on 12 March. Following those attacks, the Prime Minister announced on 14 March that, as part of a response to that incident, the Government would
“urgently develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 856.]
I will move on to one or two of the provisions in the Bill. The first is the provision to make a temporary exclusion order to disrupt and control the return to the UK of British citizens reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorism abroad. As we have heard in the recent exchanges, that is a very difficult offence to prove, and it is clear to me that it needs tightening up. It is also clear to me that, where there is intelligence or other evidence that people have deliberately travelled abroad to take part in terrorist training or atrocities, they deserve to be prosecuted when they come back.
I was quite attracted to the idea of proscribed areas. Why would anybody want to go to Syria, for example, and put their life at risk, unless it was for a specific valid reason such as being a journalist or overseas aid worker? There is a defence in the Bill of having a reasonable excuse for having travelled to these areas, and I am very pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering such a provision as a possible amendment to the Bill.
I am also pleased that the Bill contains provisions to be inserted into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 relating to anti-terrorism traffic regulation orders—the so-called ATTROs. As we have so sadly witnessed in the Westminster attack and others elsewhere, an ordinary car, van or lorry can be a weapon in the hands of a terrorist. The ability to prevent people from being in certain areas at certain times is a sensible one to have. In fact, we should be able to ban traffic from a wider area around any events that are likely to be attended by large numbers of people.
I was pleased to see that the Bill will extend sentences for certain terrorist offences from 10 years to 15 years, and that the sentence actually served will be longer than the norm for non-terrorist offences. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), however, we will have to watch radicalisation in our prisons. I know from hearings of the Public Accounts Committee that conditions in our prisons are getting ever more difficult, including the smuggling in of more dangerous drugs and understaffing. It is very difficult to police what goes on in our prisons, but our prison warders and others have to be ever more vigilant for radicalisation taking place in our prisons, and we must do our level best to try to prevent it.
I am also pleased that the Bill contains provisions for allowing Government-backed reinsurance, so-called Pool Re, to be taken out for business interruption. Sadly, some of the small market traders in Borough were put out of business because they were unable to trade for so long.
I made several interventions earlier on the subject that I wish to concentrate on in my final remarks—terrorists’ use of the internet. As has been said, the terrorists’ modus operandi is getting ever more fleet of foot and using ever more innovative methods. We as legislators, therefore, have to be ever more fleet on our feet to counter them. Terrorists are making still greater use of the internet, and we do not yet have the powers to deal with that. I take strongly to heart the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that 1.9 million items of potential terrorist material have been removed from the internet—a 17% increase on last year. The use of the internet is clearly getting greater.
It has already been possible to prosecute people for downloading offences, but it has not been possible to prosecute people for streaming and viewing possible terrorist material on the internet. I know much has been said in the debate about the three strikes approach to viewing such material. A balance has to be struck. Personally, I would make it two views. While once might be a mistake, twice almost certainly is not, and three times establishes a pattern of behaviour that clearly indicates that someone is looking at the material with some form of purpose or intent. The Bill contains a “reasonable purpose” excuse, so a journalist or researcher looking at the material would have a reasonable excuse, but it is right to make looking at it an offence.
It is also right, as the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is doing, to look at how the internet providers can remove such material as quickly as possible. There may well be a need to legislate if that does not happen with increasing rapidity. As I said in an intervention earlier, I cannot see why the likes of Google and Facebook, which have some of the best IT writers on the planet, cannot write programs or use AI to recognise such material and take it down immediately. After all, that is the best remedy, so that people do not have the opportunity to view it. It is all very well prosecuting when they do view it, but it must be best if they do not have the opportunity. I did not want to know the precise mechanisms, because of security implications, but I was interested to know what discussions my right hon. Friend had had with internet providers in the United States on what they could do on a voluntary basis to make the withdrawal of such material much swifter and much more effective.
There are some very important provisions in the Bill, which I welcome. We need to keep ahead of the terrorists. These are some of the most vile crimes on the planet, and we need to ensure that people who contravene the norms of our democratic society are prosecuted, convicted and locked up for a long time. We need to ensure that they know that that will happen, and hopefully that will be a deterrent.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The first duty of any state is to protect its citizens. Historically, this has meant protecting ourselves from other states. That is still relevant today, but increasingly the threat is from terrorism, whether generated here or internationally. Is that going to diminish in the near future? Not from the evidence I have seen.
I would like to begin by adding my thanks to the members of the security and emergency services who reacted so professionally to last year’s tragic events in Manchester and London. We should not forget that members of our police, security agencies and armed forces keep us safe 24 hours a day. We should not take that for granted. The reaction to such events tends to be to want more legislation, but Dave Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, got it right when he said that the necessary legislation already exists. The intention of the Bill is to tighten up existing legislation. I broadly welcome the provisions in it.
It is clear that radicalisation is taking place through the internet. Dissemination of propaganda is not new. In times past, it would been done through pamphlets, books and meetings. In the 1790s, sedition Acts targeted radicals who argued for revolution from France. Throughout history, Governments have introduced various Acts to try to stop the spread of terrorism and what has been perceived to be radical thoughts against the interests of their citizens.
The situation today is rather different. Online radicalisation is not something we can put our hands on—we cannot put our hands on a book or a pamphlet; we cannot close down a meeting—and it is an international global phenomenon. The access point is relatively low. Sophisticated equipment is not needed to produce a video and upload it. It can be done using a smartphone or even a simple watch on one’s wrist. That is very different from what we talked about in relation to the Terrorism Act 2000. That shows the rate of change. It is right for the Government to react to this type of threat and to the changing way in which this type of radicalisation and propaganda is being put out there.
Another side to this issue, which is not covered in the Bill, although it would be interesting to know what the Government are considering, is terror and finance. I know the Government have taken some steps, but if we look at the open source literature, we see that the dark net is being used to raise money for terrorism organisations and organised crime. This is an area seen to be beyond the reach of law enforcement. In terms of extending that reach, I support the proposal in the Bill for extra-territorial reach to enable actions to be brought against those who radicalise individuals from overseas. This has been an issue. Those returning from Syria, Iraq and other places have been using that so-called safe haven to put out propaganda deliberately aimed at vulnerable people to ensure that they can be radicalised and to incite acts of terrorism here. The change in the Bill that allows those individuals to be prosecuted is right.
Many people who know me know that I am not a bleeding-heart liberal on this subject, but I am a bit concerned about some things in the Bill. There are two issues. First, are the measures practically going to make a difference? Secondly, will they give the opponents not just of this Bill, but of counter-terrorism legislation generally, a club with which to beat the Government? I think the Government have given them that on the viewing of online material, in terms of the three views. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, it would be illegal for someone to view something three times, but it would not be illegal, for example, for Google or another provider to host the material. The problem I have is not necessarily about whether this needs to be looked at—I think it does. However, it comes down to proportionality and whether there is the capability so that this does not overwhelm our security services and police. Clearly, if someone is viewing things on a regular basis and we can build up a picture of what they are doing, we need to have legislation or measures to take against them.
I give credit to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), for her efforts to try to get internet providers to take such material down in the first place. Hon. Members have spoken in this debate about artificial intelligence and other ways in which this may be done at a quicker pace in future—although sometimes we might want it to stay up longer, so that we can find out who is producing it. However, I want to ask the Government: how is this part of the legislation practically going to make a difference? If it is, the Government will have my 100% support for it, but I think it will be a diversion for campaigners against this entire Bill, which would be unfortunate. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) is not in his place, but he talked about the issue of intent, and this is about intent. If someone is clearly downloading or sharing information that is already illegal on a regular basis, it is quite right that they are prosecuted, but I just wonder what practical effect the measures will have and whether we have the resources to police this or enact it in the first place.
I want to touch on a couple of other areas in the Bill. One is the management of those convicted of terrorism offences. Many of my constituents would think that if someone has been convicted of terrorism, they should stay in jail for life, never being released, but we know that that is just not practical. The Bill highlights an important point, which is how we manage these individuals once they have served their sentence. I asked the Home Secretary in an intervention earlier whether this would be done in the same way as it is, for example, for sex offenders who are released and monitored in the community, and he said yes. If that is the case, that is a good model, but it is expensive. If we are going to have that type of monitoring—I know it is effective and I know about the good cross-working in my area between the probation service and the local police— I just want to be sure that we have the necessary resources at local level. These individuals will need monitoring in some cases and that will be necessary and right if we are to protect our citizens. Therefore, I welcome that provision, but only with the proper resources at local level to be able to do it.
I support the provisions in the Bill that refer to Channel panels from local authorities. At the moment, the police can make referrals, but many individuals come into contact with other agencies, and there should be a mechanism for referring them to Prevent programmes. My only caveat is that training or some resource has to be provided for local authorities and others to ensure that they understand exactly how the system works.
We debated the entire Prevent programme earlier, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that it did not have support in certain communities. I recognise that. It is partly down to a sustained campaign by certain organisations to discredit it. I am not opposed to reviewing the situation, but what would we put in its place? There is a lot of talk about the Asian community, but people involved in potential acts of right-wing terrorism are also referred to Prevent. I congratulate the Government on their new emphasis on right-wing terrorism. It is a growing problem not only in this country but across Europe. Some of the groups across Europe are certainly not benign and they commit acts of violence and terrorism not only against local Muslim populations and other minorities but to terrorise other individuals. What then would we put in place of Prevent? I have not heard anyone answer that. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). Things can always been improved, and we should always look for improvements, but what would we put in its place?
I am not sure how we tackle this, but I am concerned also about the old issue of vulnerable individuals in communities. At least one of the terrorist outrages last year had a mental health element. We need a mechanism for identifying and helping at-risk individuals who do not come into the orbit of a local authority or the health service. These are very vulnerable individuals whose minds can be preyed upon and used by people with bad intentions. I am not sure how we do that, but we do need to consider it.
On ports, I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who covered the problems very well. I see what the Minister is trying to do, but I cannot see the need for it. It is slapped under the label of state actors, and if it is to deal with that, it has my full support, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s points. A related matter, and one that raises issues of entry to and exit from this country, is that of closed subjects of interest. From what I have seen, Salman Abedi travelled in and out of this country without ever appearing on any radar screen. There is, then, an issue around monitoring closed subjects and others who could be a threat as they move between countries.
Finally, I want to mention something that is not in the Bill and on which I would welcome the Minister’s response. David Anderson made some very good recommendations in his report. Some were operational issues for the security services and police, but others were around the selling of precursors for explosives, such as fertilizers and peroxide, and the hiring of vehicles. Are the Government yet in a position to look at what David Anderson said about those matters? Will they present proposals to tighten the regulation or monitoring of people who buy the precursors of potential explosive devices, or to deal with issues relating to the hiring of vehicles, which were tragically used in some of the attacks that occurred in 2017?
I broadly welcome the Bill, but it clearly needs more scrutiny. I hope the legislation that eventually emerges is proportionate and, at the end of the day, effective, because that is what we all want. I do not think we will ever be able to prevent every single act of terrorism, but our aim must be to make such acts as hard as possible to commit.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
This has been a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate.
Two years ago, our late friend and parliamentary colleague Jo Cox was murdered, and between March and September last year there were five terror attacks. At the forefront of our minds are those who lost their lives in the incidents at Westminster Bridge, Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market, and Finsbury Park, and those who were injured at Parsons Green. We think of Jo and others who are no longer with us, and we think of the injured and their friends and families. We also think of our magnificent emergency services who, time and again, showed extraordinary bravery and courage in the most difficult circumstances.
I pay tribute to all the workers in our national health service who saved lives and treated the injured, and to all the services that were involved in the investigation and treatment of Sergei and Yulia Skripal—including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was rightly lauded by Members in all parts of the House during the debate. I also pay tribute to the work of our security services. We should think about what has not happened: since the terrible murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in May 2013, 25 terrorist attacks have been foiled and numerous lives have been saved.
It is in the context of those events that the Bill is to be judged. We all want effective legislation in that context. Such legislation must always keep pace with technology and the times in which we live, and we support the Government in those aims. We also, of course, want to put public safety at the centre of policy in this area, and to make it as effective as possible. Aspects of the Bill build on the recommendations of the previous independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) rightly highlighted the work that David Anderson has done in this area over a number of years.
We are anxious for the wider impact of terrorist incidents on surrounding communities and businesses to be taken into account, and clause 19 is welcome in that it seeks to widen the scope of losses covered. Business interruption costs are not currently covered when there is no physical damage to the commercial premises, although we know that such interruption occurs. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for the work that he has done in that regard. We will press the Government in Committee on whether they will cover losses that have been suffered by businesses in connection with the incidents of the past 15 months, and not simply losses that will be suffered in future incidents. Will they compensate businesses that have lost out in the past when they should not have done so as a consequence of the current loophole?
We intend to table substantial amendments to the Bill in Committee. The Minister has indicated a willingness to be constructive, and I take him at his word. I hope that he will consider all our amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. We will continue to make the case for proper resourcing, an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I myself have asked the Minister about it on a number of occasions. We will continue to hold the Government to account for their funding of our police and other emergency services, and our security services, and, indeed, for how much we pay the workers who do so much for our society.
The first three clauses seek to update terrorism offences on expressions of support for a proscribed organisation, publication of images, and obtaining or viewing material on the internet—the so-called digital fixes. We agree of course that the law should be updated and keep pace with the times, but those clauses will need work in Committee. Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terror legislation, has said in recent days that
“the tweaks to existing offences range from pragmatic to problematic.”
Of course, with any change in the law, we have to ensure that there is wide public consent. The independent reviewer of terror legislation said last October:
“While we can all agree that there should be nowhere for real terrorists to hide, we should also agree that legislating in the name of terrorism when the targeted activity is not actually terrorism would be quite wrong.”
That is why the legal frameworks we set in this House must be forensically considered, seeking to protect our daily lives and our values of freedom and respect. It is vital that we guard in our criminal law against any unwelcome consequences.
We will therefore be scrutinising the Government carefully on what they mean by “reckless” in the context of an expression of support for a proscribed organisation. On the photographs provision, we will want the Government to distinguish genuine threat from immature behaviour or other motives. On the streaming of material as well as downloading, I agree that the law needs to be updated in that respect, but we need to be clear about what “streaming” means. At present it is specified in the Bill as three views, but, as a number of contributions to the debate from across the House have suggested, that will need to be carefully considered. Journalists and assiduous researchers accessing material for legitimate purposes—and indeed the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—should not be criminalised, so we will be looking at the position of the Government with regard to the “reasonable excuse” defence.
On the additional sentences in the Bill, the Sentencing Council published its guidelines for terrorism offences on 28 March, but those were based on the current maximum sentences. I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister that the Government will work with the Sentencing Council on the new proposed maximum sentences.
The release of terrorist offenders who are subject to extended sentences will be a decision for the Parole Board. There were concerns in a different criminal context with regard to the Warboys case, but I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to give reassurances that shortcomings have now been satisfactorily resolved and that there can be wide confidence in the Parole Board as it carries out such an important task.
On data retention, we will of course look carefully at the Government’s justification as to why the collection of data from people who are arrested but not charged is necessary and proportionate, and what mechanisms are in place for wholly innocent people who wish to have their data removed.
A number of Members mentioned the extension of the Prevent programme, and clause 18 gives local authorities the power to refer to Channel panels as part of that strategy. Labour’s policy is for there to be a review of Prevent, and we will of course consider carefully the capacity of local authorities in this regard in their current funding settlements. Indeed, at Home Office questions only last week, I raised with the Minister my concerns about local authorities being given additional duties in respect of data without appropriate data security and training and the resources required.
It is entirely reasonable for the Government to be looking at border security. Clause 20 activates schedule 3, which includes the power to stop, question and detain. That is a very broad power. Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 3 states that somebody can be stopped, questioned and detained
“whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that a person is or has been engaged in hostile activity.”
In his opening remarks, the Home Secretary made it clear that there should be robust safeguards in circumstances such as these, and I absolutely agree with him. At the moment, the Bill provides for oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, but I suggest that working with the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism—who is at the moment the reviewer of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000—is going to be crucial. That relationship will need to be spelled out as the Bill proceeds.
Stephen Doughty
We obviously understand the need to detain individuals in certain circumstances, particularly at airports when they are potentially posing a risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to exercise these powers sensitively, it is crucial to have regard to compensation for those who have been stopped and subsequently found not to be guilty of any offence—for example, if they have missed their flight or had property taken off them?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I very much agree with my hon. Friend on that point. How we draw the law precisely in this area is very important. The powers will need to be backed up by appropriate safeguards and protections for those who are wholly innocent of any offence.
On the question of border security, the Bill as it stands means that a person who is detained for less than an hour will not have the right to access a solicitor, and that someone detained for more than an hour will be able to access a lawyer, but they could be required to do that within the sight and hearing of an officer. That will clearly have consequences for our cherished and valuable principle of legal professional privilege, under which people have the right to consult a lawyer and to do so in private. This is something that we will want to consider further in Committee, and I very much hope that the Government will listen to the points that have been made about the need for appropriate safeguards.
I hope that the considered nature of this debate will continue into the Committee stage. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the House to scrutinise and, hopefully, improve this legislation in such a crucial policy area.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
This has been a good debate, and Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated a desire to take a collaborative approach to counter-terrorism legislation. I am heartened by that, and delighted that we can start the process in that spirit. Every point that I have heard today has been made with passion, consideration and genuine belief. I might not have agreed with some of the points, but I certainly recognise that this is not about posturing or anything other than trying to make an effective piece of legislation that will make us safer. Over time, while we are doing this Bill, I intend to do as much as I can to work with Members on both sides of the House and to be as collaborative as possible. I shall work to see whether there are better ideas to improve the legislation, to ensure that we can deliver it in such a way as to enable the intelligence services, the police and local communities to feel safer than they do today.
On 22 March last year, many of us who were in the House heard shots being fired outside and heard about the horrendous events on Westminster Bridge. I was about to come into the Chamber when I heard a police officer say, “Shots fired.” We lost our friend PC Keith Palmer that day. He did his very best to defend us from a man intent on killing indiscriminately and spreading terror. On 22 May last year, in this job as Security Minister, I remember being woken just after 11.30 pm by a phone call from my office telling me of the dreadful news that a bomb had been detonated at the Manchester Arena and killed a significant number of people. Manchester is my local city, and my own daughter had been at the Arena only the week before. Those events brought home to us the vulnerability that we face.
Every one of us in the House, while not directly affected by terrorism, will have fought the general election feeling—perhaps for the first time and perhaps because of social media—the level of hate and bile that is directed at us all. I think that that made us feel a little uneasy about the society that we are in, and about what lies at the extremes behind that hate. Some of my friends on the Opposition Benches are right now under threat from the extreme right, and we remember our dear fallen colleague. Also, a good friend in my part of the world has been under real threat from some particularly nasty people. I think that we have to reflect on these issues.
There is often pressure after such attacks to have new legislation—something must be done—and I am proud that this Government did not rush to legislation. We set up several significant reviews that were consolidated into four main reviews. The operational review produced a classified report of some 1,300 pages that went into every single decision, piece of intelligence and bit of work that went on in the lead-up to some of the attacks. I read all 1,300 pages not just because I am incredibly interested and because it is my duty, but because only then could I learn what legislation will put right, what is reasonable to be asked by our security services and police and what should not necessarily need to be placed on the statute book.
We also had the Home Office’s counter-terrorism legislative review, and we reviewed Contest, pausing its relaunch to see whether anything needed to be handled. Several of those reviews were “oversighted” by David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, or Max Hill, the current reviewer, who reviewed how police used their powers in the aftermath. That gentle but solid consideration is why we are here today with legislation that hopefully helps to answer some of the challenges we face.
When the terrorists unleashed attacks on us in 2017, that demonstrated clearly not only the empowerment that they now have through social media and encrypted communication, but how they had adapted to our statute book to find new vulnerabilities. They have shifted their ambitions to find where we are not as protected as perhaps we should be, and they have exploited that. Good terrorists do that. Terrorists are all about our soft underbelly and our vulnerability. If they cannot get an AK-47, they get a truck. If they cannot get a truck, they get a knife. That is part of what they do, and if they cannot do any of that, they intimidate and scare us with words and propaganda. They exploit our constituents, whether they are vulnerable or children.
Daesh are the among the worst. They have no fuss about who they twist and corrupt. They do not care whether they are Muslim, young, abused or vulnerable or whether they suffer from mental illness. Anyone will do to carry out their twisted, murderous campaign. Despite the loss of territory in Syria, they keep their flame alive. They are adapting, and as we speak there are people in this country planning to repeat what we saw last year. There were five attacks last year, four extreme right-wing, neo-Nazi attacks have been stopped over the past 12 months, and 25 plots have been disrupted since the murder of Lee Rigby. We have 3,000 current subjects of interest involved in nearly 500 live operations. I have never seen things at such a scale, and the threat is a great challenge not only due to encrypted communications, but due to the speed at which someone who does not mind getting caught can reach out, grab a knife, go out of their front door and literally kill people as they see fit.
I will now answer some of the points made today. The shadow Home Secretary offered some positive support for the Bill in principle, which I welcome, but she highlighted some of her concerns, which I may be able to answer. In clause 1, there was a worry about reckless encouragement, but it is our challenge to deal with people who go out to inspire others. It is no coincidence that al-Qaeda’s online publication, which contains sections such as “Just Terror Tactics”, is called “Inspire” because inspiration is one of the challenges we face. There are some very charismatic people in our communities, some of whom are currently in prison but are due to be released, who have used their presence and their inspiration to recruit without actually muttering the words, “And I want you to join Daesh, and I want you to go and fight in Syria.” That has been part of the challenge, and some of them—one individual, in particular, has been responsible for hundreds of people being drawn into extremism—have used it so well for so long, which is why we have sought to plug the gap in the space of inspiration.
I agree with a number of colleagues on both sides of the House on the substance of Prevent. Whenever I hear people criticise Prevent and I ask, “Okay, what would you do?”, they just describe Prevent, and they come back to the bit about the Prevent brand being tainted. Fine, the brand is safeguarding; I will sell safeguarding all day long. We call it Prevent, but it is about safeguarding people from being exploited.
The shadow Home Secretary is worried about whether local authorities have the expertise. They do not have expertise in counter-terrorism, but, by golly, they have expertise in safeguarding vulnerable people and children. We should put Prevent referrals in perspective. There are 9,000 Prevent referrals a year, of which half are of people aged up to young adolescence. There are 621,000 referrals a year to safeguard people from domestic abuse, sexual abuse and grooming. Let us put this in perspective. Prevent is not a Big Brother spying operation.
The end result has been that, in two years, more than 500 people about whom we had serious concerns they were on the path towards, or were about to engage in, violent extremism are now deemed no longer to be a threat. That is 500 people—it takes one man to drive a van across Westminster bridge—and, in my book, that is a success.
Yes, there are people who are worried about the branding of Prevent, about which I have two things to say. First, when I raise the extreme right or the neo-Nazis, people say, “Prevent is quite a good thing for them.” Secondly, when I look people in the eye whose families have been prevented from going to Syria, they do not argue with Prevent; they say that Prevent works. One of the reasons we publish the figures is that they put it in perspective and show that there are successes. It is not 100%, but 30% of the people it picks up need other types of safeguarding.
Often the people who attack Prevent the most are the ones who do not want Prevent to work because they are the flipside of the recruiters of extremism in this country. We should not forget that some people want the narrative to be, “Don’t trust the state. We don’t like the state, and we don’t want the state. Our way is the best way.” They peddle this myth that a child was reported to have said, “My uncle lives in a terrorist household”—we have all heard that one trotted out by the anti-Prevent lobby. What the child actually said was, “I live in a terraced house, and my uncle beats me.” It never was a Prevent referral; it was a referral because the child was being abused. The same people will peddle that myth until the cows come home.
Our ambition is to broaden Prevent, to get the local community engaged and to get local authorities alongside the police on referrals. One of the criticisms of Prevent is that it is too police-focused. Local authorities may understand some of the nuances in their community to determine whether a person is really being radicalised. If the local authority says, “We think they are being radicalised,” why should it not be allowed directly to refer that person to Channel? I think that is a good thing. It is not a step backwards; it is listening to some of those criticisms about Prevent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) is right to talk about keeping people safe. This is about safeguarding. On whether we have too much legislation or legislation enough, there are two things to say. Britain is a world leader in counter-terrorism. All our legislation has got us to a point where most countries come to ask us how to do it. Most countries around the world are envious of what we have.
Also, unlike other countries, we have probably the most oversighted intelligence services, security services, police and law enforcement in the world. A number of the measures in the Bill were recommended by the independent reviewers. The hostile activity port stop power has been included because the independent reviewer identified two occasions on which our police were abusing the counter-terrorism power to stop people we thought were from hostile states and recommended a separate power. The Biometrics Commissioner was the one who recommended the changes to the biometrics. So the Government have listened to some of these independent reviewers and thought, “That is a good thing to do.”
May I say to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) that I welcome the Scottish National party’s support in principle for the Bill? Of course I will continue to work with him and the Scottish Government. I first entered the Scottish Parliament at the same time as his Justice Minister. I had a phone call with him last night. If he feels at any stage that they are not getting the engagement, he should not hesitate to get in touch and I will make sure that it is done. It is incredibly important that Contest and our counter-terrorism legislation reach all the fingertips of the United Kingdom. I note that when National Action was proscribed, something called Scottish Dawn popped up quickly—it is now proscribed, too. It is important that we do not muddy the waters where we all agree to agree.
On the issue about recklessness, part of this is about how we deal with those who are targeting people without caring whether they understand or not—I refer to the issue of vulnerability. In March, Umar Haque was convicted of trying to radicalise hundreds of children at school. He got them to swear allegiance to ISIL. He got them to re-enact the Westminster Bridge attack in their classroom and he showed them footage of people being beheaded. He said to those children, “If you tell your parents, you will go to prison.” Those people were vulnerable—they were children—and we have to find a way to make sure we close the gap in determining how much intent has to be involved and how much the receiver of that information has to know what they are getting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—my learned friend—gave an excellent example about recklessness when he talked about a baseball bat. What we are dealing with here is not that different—I may disagree here with the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey)—and the law has established on a number of occasions where recklessness comes in. My notes tell me to cite R v. G and another from 2003, and I think my hon. Friend is the only person who would understand what case that refers to. It was not an enlightening note, but it shows that this has been done.
Points have been made about hostile activity stops on the border. One way we temper the no suspicion issue is by the fact that whatever oral statements are made then cannot be used in court as evidence. That is an important way to try to balance this, but there is the issue about suspicion to address. If I were an agent of a foreign country, I would be trained. I would know the law of the country I am coming into, so I would give my electronic equipment to a family member. If we had to have reasonable suspicion, we would have to have reasonable suspicion about everyone else travelling with that person; it would be harder to adapt to something as it happens.
I hear what the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) says, as he is right, about the impact the current schedule has had, including on my constituency, and the cost and what people perhaps lose when they are stopped under counter-terrorism powers. We have to look at whether we can make sure the information is provided in a timely way, so that people do not miss flights. Sometimes things are too last-minute, but this has been incredibly useful.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) talked about the challenges of dealing with foreign fighters. Some 150 people have been prevented from going to train, fight or engage in terrorism because of that schedule. We managed at the airport to stop them, and in examining their electronic devices, we saw that they were not really going on a family holiday to Turkey but were in fact, for example, taking their three young children to Raqqa. No one wants to go on such a holiday, and those three children had no say in that.
I hope and believe that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) will be meeting the Economic Secretary to discuss the issue he raised further. I hear what he says, and I also want to pay tribute to his colleague the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), as she has talked a lot about loss of business around the Manchester Arena. It is right to raise this. I am also glad he has called out Aviva. It is important for us to remember—this is the same for our constituents going on a summer holiday—that slowly but surely over the past 10 years travel insurance firms have dropped terrorism from their coverage, yet the odds of being a victim of terrorism are still absolutely tiny. So I have asked to see what we can do with insurance companies more widely to ensure that, although people are at only a tiny, tiny risk of being a victim, this is not just casually dropped out of people’s schedules.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) referenced Hezbollah. Of course we always keep proscription under review. I hear what he says about it and I understand the hurt people feel here when they see others flying flags of Hezbollah on the streets—for example, on al-Quds day. He also talked about the Council of Europe. It is absolutely the case, on the border point, that we need to engage those partnerships post Brexit. We need to make sure that we continue with all the tools that we use at the moment. The United Kingdom Government’s position is unconditional on that. That is what we would like to engage with. The question is for the European Commission—whether it would like to have that.
Security is not a competition. Trade might be, but security is not. I think that is something they understand in Europe, going by my private conversations, and I hope that, by the time we get to Brexit, we will see it in place, because that partnership, both domestically and internationally, is why we are so successful in counter-terrorism.
I can already give the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) some good news from the Dispatch Box: there is no 20-year bar on glorification of terrorism offences, nor will there be. In that sense, hopefully, he will be able to progress and go forward.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is right that we have to find ways to explore the foreign fighter challenge. That is not just us—it is the French and the Germans, too—where we might have intelligence that someone is out there engaging, but it is hard to get the evidence. During the passage of the Bill, we are going to explore new measures or other measures on which I am happy to work together that I hope will do that for us.
We have also extended extraterritorial jurisdiction, because it is ridiculous that someone can sit in Syria and try to recruit people from the United Kingdom and somehow not be prosecuted correctly.
Mr Speaker
Order. Forgive me. Am I right in thinking that the Minister of State is approaching a peroration as eloquent as Demosthenes but markedly briefer?
Mr Wallace
The usual channels have taken over. I have lost the first battle.
In summing up, I apologise to the other Members who contributed so eloquently to the debate. I would, of course, be happy to meet them outside the usual channels. I should say very clearly that we owe a great duty to our intelligence services and police in thanking them for all the hard work that they do. We will progress with this legislation. I will work as much as possible in partnership with Members from all parts of the House to get a deal and a Bill that works to keep us safe.
Mr Speaker
The Chair was merely making an inquiry, and there was a question mark at the end of it, but I get the impression that the peroration was not altogether unwelcome to the House. We are very grateful to the Minister of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
COUNTER-TERRORISM AND BORDER SECURITY BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 July.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Paul Maynard.)
Question agreed to.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any amounts payable by the Treasury in respect of obligations incurred, under any agreement of reinsurance or guarantee, as a result of the amendments made by the Act to the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993.—(Paul Maynard.)
Question agreed to.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees, under amendments made by the Act to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in connection with traffic regulation orders or notices made or issued for the purpose of protecting events or sites from risks associated with terrorism.—(Paul Maynard.)
Question agreed to.
Women and Equalities Committee
Ordered,
That Teresa Pearce be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Tulip Siddiq be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Cornish National Identity: 2021 Census
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. If Members are leaving, I am sure they will do so quickly and quietly. I cannot believe that there will be hushed private conversations conducted by Members who do not wish to hear the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) dilate on the important matter of Cornish national identity in the 2021 census, to which I am sure everybody else wishes keenly to listen.
Steve Double
I am deeply honoured to be able to make the case tonight for celebrating Cornish identity and to call for the inclusion of Cornish identity to be recognised in the next census in 2021. I am very grateful for the support of many of my Cornish colleagues here in the House this evening.
There is no doubt or debate over the fact that the Cornish are a proud people who share an extraordinary history that can be traced back thousands of years. In calling for this debate to make the case for a Cornish tick box for national identity in the next census, there is a risk that some may see this as some sort of gimmick designed simply to boost our tourist industry or play into a stereotype of Cornish country folk. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although it is true to say that many of us Cornish can be guilty of having a playful jibe at the English, especially those from Devon—after all they do put their jam and cream on the wrong way round on their scones—this is not a whim or some notion based on a romantic view of the past.
The Cornish have, along with our Welsh cousins, the longest history of any people in Britain, dating back 12,000 years. It is believed that these ancient people entered this isle after the Ice Age from the area now occupied by the Basques. Genetic codes indelibly mark the Cornish with the DNA of their ancient ancestors. It is believed that a staggering 80% of the Cornish retain this genetic marker. The Cornish language, which is seeing a revival in recent times, has a 5,000-year history. We in Cornwall have our own culture and our own ways. Cornwall even has its own patron saint, St Piran, whose life is celebrated on 5 March every year. We have our own flag and even our own tartan, which I am modelling so well with my tie this evening.
We are all but an island, with the sea surrounding us on three sides and the Tamar River on the fourth, which falls only four miles short of making us an island. There has been many a Cornishman who has been tempted to get his shovel out and dig those last four miles to finish the job, because in so many ways we have the culture, the identity and the attitudes of an island race.
The 80 miles of granite protruding into the Atlantic stubbornly rebel against the great ocean and yet have been shaped by it. The beauty and the desolation defy description and yet somehow portray the spirit of the people who call it their land. It is as if the people and the land are as one. This is not just an historic or romantic notion, but a serious issue that is very much based on current, clear facts.
In 2014, the Government announced that the Cornish would be classified under the Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities—a body that I have been honoured to be appointed to recently by the Prime Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward and remind him that we all love our cultures, which, mixed together, represent the best of British. I certainly appreciate the richness of the Cornish culture. Does he agree that there is also something special about the Ulster Scots heritage, of which I am a part? It is these different branches that come from our Britishness that mean that we can all take pride in being Ulster Scots, Welsh or Cornish, and uniquely British.
Steve Double
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree with him. One of the beauties of our islands is that we can celebrate both our diversity and the thing that unites us, which is our love for our nation, the United Kingdom, and being British. Like my Celtic cousin, I say that we Celtic fringe nations can bring a true sense of diversity and variety that enrich our British culture.
Ben Lake
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. For what it is worth, he can count on the support of Plaid Cymru—his cousins across St George’s channel—in getting this tick box for the Cornish identity. Does he agree that doing so is of not just symbolic, but practical, importance? It is symbolic in that the census would then acknowledge the Cornish nation, just as it does the other Celtic nations of the UK. It would also be of practical importance in allowing the UK Government better to prepare for issues such as the Cornish language.
Steve Double
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and appreciate his support for my case. He makes the good point, which I will develop in just a moment, that this is not just a matter of Cornish identity and pride; it has a practical application to ensure that the Government can obtain accurate data through the census that can shape future policy. That is so important.
As I was saying, the Government recognised the Cornish as a national minority in 2014. It is worth recalling the words that the Government released in a statement at the time, saying:
“The decision to recognise the unique identity of the Cornish, now affords them the same status under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. For the first time the government has recognised the distinctive culture and history of the Cornish.”
As hon. Members can imagine, there was much celebration and dancing in the streets of Cornish towns and villages at this announcement. We may have even consumed a pasty or two to celebrate. At last—what every Cornish man and woman had known in their hearts for generations was now officially recognised and declared by the Government. However, we stand here today—more than four years later—and wonder what all the fuss was about. We ask ourselves, what did this mean?
It is worth noting at this point that the Government have in many ways been very supportive of Cornwall in recent times. We are seeing record levels of investment in our transport infrastructure, and Cornwall remains the only rural county to have been given a devolution deal by the Government. However, when it comes to the specific matter of recognition of the Cornish as a people, there is still a great deal to do. Sadly, despite the recognition afforded by the European framework convention and embraced in words by the UK Government, the Government have been criticised by the Council of Europe for not doing enough to address the cultural needs of communities in Cornwall. There have been warm words but little action.
The Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities visited the United Kingdom in March 2016 to assess how the UK Government and other public bodies were complying with the articles of the convention. It published an opinion document in early 2017 that was very critical of the UK Government and their failure to act on the articles of the convention. One of the key proposals in the report to address this shortcoming was the inclusion in the 2021 census of a Cornish tick box for national identity.
The purpose of the census is clear and in many ways simple; it is designed to give an accurate picture of the demographic and social changes within the UK. I celebrate with the Scottish who were identified on the census form in the 2001 census, along with the English and the Northern Irish, of course. The process was, however, flawed because there was no provision for the Welsh. The matter was corrected for Wales in 2011, when 66% of people in Wales chose to identity as Welsh. Imagine the outrage today if the Scottish or Welsh were omitted from the next census. As I highlighted earlier, the Government’s statement in 2014 said that the Cornish would now be afforded the same recognition as our Celtic cousins, yet on this simplest and most basic of things—the ability for people to declare themselves as Cornish in the census—the Government are falling short.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I am sitting not a million miles away from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who is an exiled Cornishman. There are many people outside Cornwall who have moved away, but who were born in Cornwall and would probably like to be able to tick the box on the census. Has my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) considered that?
Steve Double
I am grateful to my Cornish colleague for that intervention and for pointing out the hon. Member for Wycombe, who in fact attended the same school as me in Cornwall, so we have a great deal in common. He makes a very good point. This is not just about people currently living in Cornwall; it is about the right and opportunity for people across the country who count themselves Cornish—maybe by birth; maybe by ancestry—to identify themselves as Cornish.
The point has been made that there is the option under “Other” in the census to write “Cornish” as one’s nationality. In fact, in 2011 a staggering 73,000 Cornish men and women chose to do so. I should declare an interest in saying that I was one of those 73,000 people. An interesting comparison is worth noting. Those 73,000 people represent about 14% of the residents of Cornwall. That is the same percentage of Welsh residents who wrote “Welsh” under the “Other” option in the 2001 census. In 2001, the inclusion of a specific tick box for “Welsh” increased the percentage of people identifying as Welsh from 14% to 66%. I am convinced that if a tick box was provided, we would see a similar increase in the percentage of people choosing Cornish as their identity. A dropdown menu provision for “Other” is not good enough.
Recognition by way of a tick box will not only satisfy those of us in the far west but enhance the accuracy of the census by allowing the many thousands of Cornish men and women from across the UK—the Cornish diaspora—to know that they can declare their Cornish identity. Gleaning accurate data is surely what the census is all about. We need to know how each nationality within the UK is faring: it is a crucial part of the exercise. We need the census to throw up the relevant and accurate data that can shape future policy for every group identified within the UK.
This issue is not just about the current generation—it is about our future and the protection and nurturing of our unique Cornish identity, culture and heritage. As I highlighted, over 73,000 people registered as Cornish in 2011. Thousands more would have done so if the option had been as straightforward as it is for the other nationalities. What is so telling is that among the young people of Cornwall—our schoolchildren—a clear and rapidly growing number now identify themselves as Cornish. Any argument that there is no demand to identify as Cornish, or that it is a fad of a bygone era, is erroneous. Our young people are proud to be Cornish and deserve the right to be able to say so in future. In fact, there is a growing movement within Cornwall to celebrate our unique identity and culture that is the strongest it has been for many, many years.
I understand the concerns of the Office for National Statistics—and I suspect the Government also—that if it allows a tick box for the Cornish in the next census, it will be overwhelmed with hundreds of other groups calling for their identity to be formally recognised in this way. I appreciate that this is a genuine concern. However, there is a very simple answer. The Cornish are the only nationality recognised by the Government under the framework convention who do not have the option of a tick box in the census—who are not recognised in this way. No other group can make that claim. In that regard, the case for the Cornish is unique. No one else can make the case for inclusion in the way that the Cornish can.
I am very grateful to be backed in this call by all six of Cornwall’s MPs, by Cornwall Council, and by a whole raft of organisations from across Cornwall. I am calling on the Government to back our campaign for a Cornish tick box in the 2021 census and thereby take an important step towards fulfilling their responsibilities under the framework convention. In finishing, there is one simple thing left to be said: Kernow bys vyken—Cornwall forever.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing this debate on Cornish national identity and the 2021 census. I am tempted to argue for a special Norfolk identity, but I will restrain myself, even though we have half an hour extra on the clock.
I make my comments in the sure knowledge that my hon. Friend is a proud Cornishman and a strong campaigner for Cornwall and recognition of the Cornish identity. I thank him, his colleagues and those behind the campaign for the work they have done to bring this issue to the House, as well as the other hon. Members who made brief contributions this evening. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where I know he will make strong arguments.
I would like to start by discussing why the census is important and what we do with the data, which is the practicality that I think we all want to get to. The data collected by the census underpins decisions both locally and nationally. The earliest census that could be described as such in this country was the Domesday Book, which was to catalogue assets for taxation; I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend is looking for. The first official census in 1801 was conducted to monitor population growth and resources. In modern times, the data that the census provides underpins planning and funding for the provision of key services used by everybody, such as education and healthcare. The data allows us to identify and address unfairness and inequality in society, with particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. The census also provides detailed data on small groups at a very local level in a way that other sources do not, so I understand the importance of this opportunity to capture better data on the Cornish identity.
Responsibility for delivery of the census in England and Wales sits with the independent Office for National Statistics. Since the last census in 2011, the ONS has been thoroughly preparing for the 2021 census, to ensure that it is fit for purpose, reflects the modern digital society in which we live and ultimately provides the evidence needed for Government and others to identify any areas of inequality in our society and act on them. The ONS is now completing its programme of research, consultation and analysis on the census, and its recommendations will inform the Government’s census White Paper later this year.
I should stress that it is important that the ONS is given the time to get its recommendations right. It would not be appropriate for me or the Government to pre-empt its findings, but I know from meeting the ONS that it has listened broadly to stakeholders’ views on the topics and questions for the 2021 census. It carried out a topic consultation in 2015, with the response published in 2016, and it has undertaken a programme of research and engagement with communities on a range of issues that need further consideration.
On the need for a Cornish tick box in the next census, the ONS is working to ensure that those who identify as Cornish can and will do so in the 2021 census through a tick box or another means. It has committed to work with Cornwall Council to improve the available analysis on the Cornwall population from the 2021 census, building on feedback on what was provided in 2011. I know that the ONS has spoken with Cornwall Council and Cornish Members and continues to consider the evidence provided. I know that it will also engage with Cornish community groups and the council to tailor census communications and operations to the Cornish, to increase the response rate of self-identification. That is another point of practicality that I think we are all keen to see.
The consultative approach that the ONS has taken, and the fact that it continues to meet interested parties to reach a common view on the information that should be captured, is welcome. I understand from a recent meeting between the ONS and the council that there is a clear agreement that Cornwall needs better data on the Cornish population. I also know that the ONS is still deciding on, and open to arguments about, the best way to meet that need. It is excellent and timely for us to have this debate tonight, because it allows Cornish Members to bring forward their constituents’ arguments, which they have done eloquently, and for those arguments to be considered by the ONS before such decisions are finalised.
Let me acknowledge the important and proud history and unique culture of Cornwall, alongside its distinctive language; I will not try to respond to the saying that my hon. Friend mentioned. That is of course fully recognised under the framework convention for the protection of national minorities, and in 2014 the Government recognised the unique identity of the Cornish, which acknowledged the importance to people in Cornwall of their proud history, culture and heritage. Since then, the Government have supported the work of Cornwall Council and its partners in encouraging the further development of Cornish culture and heritage, including with support for the Cornish language and funding for Cornwall Council in recent years.
Jim Shannon
We are not all from Cornwall, obviously, but those of us who are not—I am from Northern Ireland, from an Ulster Scots tradition, and my colleague from Wales, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), is from a Welsh tradition—support recognising Cornish culture, language, history and traditions. There is support for the very same thing from other nations within the great big United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Chloe Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I know from my meetings with him how proudly he, too, speaks up for his own culture and what it means for his community, and I respect that.
Let me turn to what we need to be able to do with census data. The crucial point is that we need to be able to understand the Cornish population, their circumstances and any issues specific to them. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay has argued that the Cornish are uniquely disadvantaged because, as he puts it, they are the only ethnic minority in the UK protected under the framework convention who do not have a tick box in the census. Let me try to set out why this is not a case of disadvantage, and how we may be able to achieve the same goals through a choice of means.
We want to ensure that all minorities are effectively represented in the 2021 census. For that reason—this is a very important point—the 2021 census will for the first time be a predominantly online census. It will be the first time that that has occurred, and it will provide the opportunity for all respondents to express their right to self-identify either through a tick box or a write-in option. I hear my hon. Friend’s arguments about how a write-in option is not suitable, but let me try to put some of the points that the ONS feels are important and explain why we think the census will provide the data for which we are all looking as a common goal.
Historically, there has always been pressure to include more questions and response options in the census than can be accommodated without putting an unacceptable burden on members of the public in completing the form. This census is no exception, but because it will be primarily online, it will be quicker and easier for all respondents to identify themselves using free text. That will help us to produce richer and higher-quality analysis about communities without the need to include more and more tick boxes.
I understand the argument that a tick box has been seen as essential in getting to questions of cultural identity, such as ethnicity, national identity and language. However, the innovation of an online questionnaire means that we can add a drop-down box with a “search as you type” option. For example, if one of my hon. Friend’s constituents began to type the letter C, it would immediately offer “Cornish” as an option to choice. Along with local campaigns and community engagement, that will aid our ability to raise awareness of the option. With such techniques, it will be possible for respondents to identify themselves more quickly and easily, and they will have every encouragement and opportunity to do so. The ONS will offer comprehensive guidance to support self-identification, whether through a tick box or a “search as you type” function. Those are two ways to meet the same goal. I just wanted to set out for my hon. Friends the alternatives that are under consideration.
Chloe Smith
To get back to the core point that my hon. Friends have put before the House tonight, we know that tick boxes can provide guidance and assistance to make responding easier, but many questions have too many response options to make a tick box the only solution. That is why I am telling my hon. Friends that it is not the only solution and there are other ways to achieve the same goal.
Online data gathering allows improved ways of enabling respondents to identify themselves as they wish, and for a better quality of statistic to be generated by analysis of the responses. The bottom line is that the ONS absolutely recognises the need for better data on Cornish communities.
Scott Mann
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially on the point about statistics. I am slightly worried about having “search as you type”, so that “Cornish” pops up in a box. Some people might put “Cornish” if there is a tick box, but would not necessarily start typing it—such as the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who grew up in Cornwall, has moved away and probably would tick Cornish if there were a tick box. The ONS will miss a trick with the statistics if “Cornish” is not written in a proper drop-down box.
Chloe Smith
I take that point. The ONS is listening carefully to this debate, which is timely because it gives us a further opportunity to hear and take into account the views of Cornish hon. Members and the constituents for whom they speak so well tonight.
As I say, the ONS will consider all the evidence to decide how best to gather the data. We are here in a common goal—to try to get to the root of any inequalities or unfairness in society, for which we need quality data. We generally expect better data now, and an online census will bring other benefits. If I may illustrate why I say that we will have a much greater online service this year than 10 years ago, in 2011, 17% of census returns were made online. In 2021, we will look to achieve a 75% online return rate. It should be easier and quicker for individuals, and is much more cost-effective than completion and return of a paper form. I hope that it will also serve to encourage more completion among my hon. Friends’ constituents. The ONS will provide detailed assistance to the public to encourage online completion, including a dedicated census contact centre, engagement with community groups, and work by census field staff on the doorstep.
Most importantly for Cornish national identity, the 2021 census will for the first time offer a bespoke analytical product to the Cornish. That really will be a step towards our shared goal of better data about the community, gathered in ways that may be new to those who have made this argument over the years. The core goal is to get the data and put it to use—the practicality that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) mentioned. That is what will, I hope, allow us to improve the measurement of the socioeconomic conditions and the educational, health and housing outcomes of those who have identified as Cornish and native Cornish speakers. As I outlined, that will be hugely supported by ongoing engagement to ensure that the analysis is helpful to the specific needs of Cornwall Council and that it offers a genuine improvement in our understanding of what it means to be Cornish. That will be provided regardless of whether there is a tick-box solution or a write-in and “search as you type” solution.
I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for his campaigning ability in raising this matter. My hon. Friends, this team of six parliamentarians and local champions, have spoken for Cornwall loudly and clearly. They have come here tonight with a strong voice to express what it means to Cornwall for this data to come back from the census. I hope that in return I have been able to explain the position of the independent ONS, and to convey that the Government recognise and value Cornwall. I hope the 2021 census will allow the national identity to be fully expressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Barclay
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the NHS has £80 billion of PFI contracts and a £200 billion a year spend on PFI.
[Official Report, 23 May 2018, Vol. 641, c. 951.]
Letter of correction from Stephen Barclay.
An error has been identified in my winding-up speech during the Opposition day debate on NHS Outsourcing and Privatisation.
The correct response should have been:
Stephen Barclay
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the NHS has £80 billion of PFI contracts and a £2 billion a year spend on PFI.
Petition
Dangerous driving sentencing review
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 205169 relating to Parliament’s vote on the deal for the UK’s exit from the EU.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I am pleased that the lead petitioner is in the Public Gallery to hear the debate. I present this petition on behalf of the over 113,000 people who signed it. The petition is quite straightforward:
“Parliament’s vote on the Brexit deal must include an option to remain in the EU.
A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson’s choice, and our MPs should be allowed to vote with their conscience to deliver what they believe is best for the country.”
It is either fortuitous or a strange coincidence that we are debating this petition the day before the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill returns to the House of Commons, having been through the House of Lords, where it was significantly amended—in fact, some might say, put through the wringer in several important ways.
The question of Parliament’s role in Brexit has been running since the referendum—from Gina Miller successfully taking a case to the High Court in 2016 to argue that the Government could not trigger article 50 without consulting Parliament, through to the Government’s announcement at the start of the year that they would put the final deal agreed between the UK and the European Union to a vote in both Houses of Parliament. The Government’s position is that if the Commons does not approve the agreement they present to Parliament, the UK will leave the European Union on 29 March without a deal. That is a “take it or leave it” decision.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the speech she is making and to the petitioners for raising this important subject. Does she agree that amendment 19, which is due to be voted on this week, would prevent the kind of Hobson’s choice the petitioners are concerned about? Over 600 people in my constituency appear to be concerned about that, because they have signed this petition.
Liz Twist
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on that point later in my speech.
If the agreement that the Government present to Parliament is not approved, the UK will leave the European Union on 29 March without a deal. That is a “take it or leave it” decision or, as the petitioners describe it, “Hobson’s choice”, with no option of saying, as the petitioners do, that Parliament’s vote on the Brexit deal must include an option to remain in the European Union. No matter what the outcome, there will be no chance for Members of Parliament to say, “It is better for us to stay in the EU than to accept the deal that the Government manage to negotiate, whatever that ends up being”—something the petitioners believe is essential.
The Labour party has said all along that Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the terms of any withdrawal agreement the Prime Minister reaches with the European Union. It cannot be acceptable, as the Government originally proposed, for the Prime Minister simply to force through a deal on an issue of this importance or, as the Government now propose, for Parliament to have only a binary, “take it or leave it” choice. That is why Labour has repeatedly tried to amend the withdrawal Bill—to ensure that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote, and we have seen much discussion about what a meaningful vote means.
On Tuesday and Wednesday we will return to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and consider some of the 192 amendments made as it went through the House of Lords. For this debate, however, there is one particularly significant amendment, which is the subject of much discussion in the press, as well as inside and outside Parliament, and most of us will know from our constituents contacting us how much discussion there is about it. Amendment 19 looks at the role of Parliament in approving the outcome of negotiations with the European Union. The amendment, which was proposed by Viscount Hailsham and agreed by the Lords, says:
“Her Majesty’s Government must follow any direction in relation to the negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which has been—
(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and
(b) subject to the consideration of a motion in the House of Lords.”
That amendment and the amendments on the customs union have the potential to give Parliament a much greater say on the final shape of the Brexit negotiations, but these are of course highly contentious amendments, which the Government are resisting. We must wait for the outcome of votes in the next two days to see what actually happens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, the Lords amendment would ensure that, if any withdrawal agreement is rejected by the House of Commons, it would be for Parliament—not the Prime Minister—to decide the next steps via a resolution of the House. The amendment would also ensure that, in the event of no deal being reached, it would again be for Parliament to decide what happens next.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill raises important questions about the powers of Parliament. Those who argued for Brexit talked about taking back control. Many hon. Members and other people feel that it is important that Parliament has a strong role in shaping the negotiations, just as we must have real scrutiny of how European legislation is translated into our domestic law, which is also central to the Bill. The petitioners believe, however, that the choice before Members of Parliament must include the option to remain in the European Union, and not simply to change the exit deal, whatever that turns out to be. They believe that the no deal option is not acceptable. They are asking the Government to look at this again and to allow Members of Parliament to vote on a remain option. They are asking not for the referendum to be rerun, but for Members of Parliament—nearly two years on from the referendum, and with a great deal more detailed information out there on the real issues and on the real costs of Brexit to our economy and our communities—to have the option to vote for remain when the Government put the final agreement to the vote.
As MPs, we need to think very carefully about how we vote, bearing in mind the wishes of our constituents, how they voted—to leave or to remain—and whether their views have changed. It is my job, however, to speak for the petitioners on this important issue. They are clear that there should be a remain option when it comes to the vote.
As with all petitions, the Government have already responded online to this petition. They said that the final vote will be as they originally proposed:
“The British people voted to leave and the Government will implement their decision. The vote on the final deal will give Parliament the choice to accept the agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.”
I will let the Minister make her own response to the petitioners in more detail and explain that position to them, but it is pretty uncompromising. Barring a sudden change of mind from the Government, which I am sure the petitioners would welcome, it seems they may be disappointed in the Minister’s response.
The petitioners strongly believe that when it comes to the vote in Parliament, we, as Members of Parliament, should be given a remain option, based on the information now before us.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who gave a thoughtful speech that captured the sense of many people on the remain side of the argument. However, in any debate about Brexit or about Britain regaining sovereignty, we must be clear about why we were in the position we were in the first place.
We joined the European Economic Community in 1973. At that time, people thought of it as the common market. In 1975, we had a referendum. The decision in that referendum was overwhelming endorsement by the British people, who were about 2:1 in favour of remaining in the common market. Since then, the common market has morphed, with no direct say from the British people, into the European Community and the European Union. Once again, Parliament gave the decision to the British people as to whether we should stay or go. There is no doubt about what was decided or what is required.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Out of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union, how many put on the ballot paper that they wanted to leave the single market and the customs union? The hon. Gentleman says that there is no doubt about it, so he must have the answer.
Chris Green
In the run-up to the referendum, it was abundantly clear from leave and remain campaigners, including the then Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if we chose to leave the European Union, we would leave the single market and the customs union.
Chris Green
No, I will not take too many interventions. I do not know how many sub-clauses there were in the Scottish referendum, but I suspect—
Colin Clark
There was a 72% turnout in the 2016 referendum. At the last election, the Labour party and the Conservative party stood on manifestos that pledged to deliver Brexit. With regard to the Scottish question, Scotland decided to stay in the United Kingdom. Is the point not that there has been a democratic opportunity and a once-in-a-lifetime referendum—interestingly, the Scottish referendum was supposed to be once-in-a-lifetime referendum? Does my hon. Friend agree that not to deliver on that would be an absolute betrayal of 17.4 million people, and of the 16 million people who took part on the other side of the referendum?
Chris Green
I do to some extent, but we have a healthy democracy and the debate carries on. E-petitions are an important part of that, and many other forms of democratic debate up and down the country are entirely legitimate.
Chris Green
For example, if the Liberal Democrats had won the 2017 general election with an overwhelming landslide, endorsing their view of staying in the EU, I would have taken that as a serious statement from the British people.
Wera Hobhouse
Given that we have introduced referendums into our parliamentary system, is it not the whole point that we have asked the people once, and the debate has moved on, so it is now imperative that we ask them again, because we want to have a healthy democracy? We need further clarification on the decisions that are being made about moving on.
Chris Green
The hon. Lady makes an important point about clarity and what people were voting for. We could debate every single general and local election, and the Scottish and the alternative vote referendums, in those terms, saying that the people did not understand and that we must try again until they get it right. I do not agree with that. When we take the question to the people, it is for both sides, and even for people in the middle who are undecided, to make their case and their argument.
Perhaps there were flaws in the timing of the referendum, but that was not down to anyone on the leave side. It was a remainer—the then Prime Minister, David Cameron—who decided the campaign’s timing. If there are any doubts or uncertainties about people not having enough information, or enough time to gather that information, accountability has to sit with the lead remainer, who was responsible for the timetable?
We must regain control over our laws, borders and money, and we must have the right to negotiate trade deals with countries around the world. The petition has 113,613 supporters, which is a substantial number, but it falls far short of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union, as has been highlighted.
In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Blaydon described the e-petition as suggesting a choice between two evils, or of the lesser of two evils, but that is disappointing language from the remain campaign. To describe the decision of leave voters in terms of being between one evil and another suggests that leave voters voted for evil.
In my mind, there is no doubt about the feelings of the British people and the direction of travel they want us to take. Increasingly, whether people were undecided, voted leave or even voted remain, they just want politicians to get on with it, to deliver the result and to deliver a good no deal option or—my favoured option—a good deal with the European Union.
We, the British people, want a fantastic relationship with the European Union and our friends in Europe. We want a far better deal than World Trade Organisation most favoured nation status. That is in our power and the European Union’s power. I urge the Minister to talk to all her friends and colleagues in the Department, to win that argument and win that deal.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank the petitioners for bringing this debate to the House. It is a good debate to have. I have already made it clear that it is important to extend the argument about who should make the decision. Does it lie with Parliament or, in the end, with the people, whatever question we ask? That is the point I want to make.
The Liberal Democrats have long and consistently campaigned to let the people have the final say on the deal. That includes the question of remaining in the EU, for this reason:
“We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 202.]
Those words were spoken by the now Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I agree with him, and I wonder whether he agrees with himself.
Chris Green
Does the hon. Lady think that everyone who voted in the alternative vote referendum fully understood the alternative vote?
Wera Hobhouse
When a referendum result is so close, as was the case with the Brexit vote, and so crucial for the future of this country, it is important to provide clarification.
We are two years on from the 2016 referendum, and the Government’s legitimacy for their version of Brexit is lessening. The “will of the people” is the last remaining argument as to why we have made the right decision and why the Government are going forward in this way. Although the discussion and information about what the UK can and cannot achieve when or if we leave the EU moves on all the time, we are repeatedly told that the referendum decision is fixed once and for all and that there can be no change, no update, no clarification, no confirmation and no review—we are stuck.
Chris Green
After the last referendum, we waited more than 40 years for the 2016 referendum. How frequent should referendums be in the future?
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman addresses an important debate: what is the lifetime of a referendum? When can we say that a referendum decision has been respected? If he looks at referendums in other countries, he will see that the people of Greece made a decision that was not compatible, but they were asked several times, and that was brave. I think this Government should be brave enough to go for that.
Wera Hobhouse
I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress.
We are stuck with a decision that was made in 2016. Why is that? Are the Government too afraid to find out what the people think now? Indeed, the last to be asked now are the people. That is why I continue to say that if we want to be truly democratic and if we truly believe in the will of the people, what is the problem with asking them again?
Colin Clark
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but referendums hold a very strange place in the British constitution, because there is not really a constitutional position for them. Today’s debate is about the legitimacy of a referendum. The Liberal Democrats are Unionists, so does she agree with the Scottish National party that there should be another independence referendum in Scotland because people’s minds may or may not have changed?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I do not believe that a discussion on the Brexit referendum should be swapped with one on the Scottish referendum.
Britain is a parliamentary democracy—the hon. Gentleman has pointed that out— and we have now introduced this strange element of a direct democracy and of asking the people directly. However, the Government are now not allowing any mechanism for confirming or updating that referendum, or allowing any say in the final deal. It is that deal that matters most now; it will affect the lives of British citizens for generations.
It is obvious that 650 MPs cannot update, confirm or review a decision by 33 million people, but the people themselves can and should be allowed to see through the decision-making process that they started. As the MP for Bath, I am fortunate enough to have a clear mandate from my constituents that reflects my own beliefs. However, many of my colleagues are torn either between their conscience and the majority vote in their constituency, or between their conscience and their party Whip.
In addition—I have said this before—the closeness and the fierce divide of the referendum vote have made it virtually impossible for many MPs to represent their constituents fairly. Ministers have on countless occasions changed their minds on Brexit. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union himself said on 24 January, concerning his previous support for remaining in the customs union: “New facts, new opinions”.
Much has changed since 2016; we know far more now than we did then. I will hold my hand up and say, “So do I. I didn’t know everything.” Members of the public were told by the leave campaign that we could leave the European Union in an afternoon, but now even the hardest of hard Brexiteers will admit that it is far more complicated and will take much longer than many expected. We were told that £350 million a week would go to the NHS; that has been quietly dropped. The potential conflict of leaving the customs union and keeping an open border on the island of Ireland was never mentioned once by the leave campaign, never mind fully understood; it is not fully understood even now.
Wera Hobhouse
I would like to make some progress.
Who in 2016 mentioned Euratom, REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—or Galileo? Information changes, and politicians move on and tweak, change and update, but they absolutely forbid the people to do so. They hide behind the false pretence that they respect the will of the people and democracy, but that is cynical and insincere. If the Government were truly interested in respecting the will of the people, they would ask them the question now, and again on the deal—although we do not even know whether there will be a deal—including the option to stay in the European Union.
I believe that the real answer is to give the people the final say on the deal. The people must finish what the people have started.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and hear her arguments, and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) lay out the case for the motion. As one would expect from a constituency such as mine, where 81% of people voted to remain in the European Union, a number of my constituents have signed the petition and it is a delight to project their voice this afternoon. Just today, we read that there will potentially be 4,000 job losses at Rolls-Royce and that Poundland is likely to go under, with 5,000 jobs lost, and I believe that over the weekend House of Fraser announced that it is closing a number of its flagship stores, which will affect many of our high streets.
Chris Green
When we look at our high streets, we are looking at our shops. Does what is happening reflect the nature of our transition out of the European Union or does it reflect, to some extent, the nature of our shopping habits, which are changing rapidly?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure it reflects trends such as the increased use of the internet to purchase products, but it is also a fundamental question of there being less money in people’s pockets. For example, there is just as much footfall as there has ever been in the high street in Wood Green, which I represent, but all the shops are closing because people do not have money in their pockets to spend. That reflects the 30-year flatness of wages, which I believe has been a big contributor to people’s dissatisfaction with traditional politics and led to some of the debate that we have ended up with.
Furthermore on the economy, of course, we have seen the drop in sterling, although it is slightly better now than it was just after the referendum result. However, we have also seen the effect on trade, in terms of uncertainty.
Colin Clark
The hon. Lady is citing specific statistics, so maybe she can answer two questions: why is employment so high; and why is the stock market at an ever-increasing level? How do those things reflect her argument about Brexit?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I am very pleased that unemployment is now about 4%. That is something to be proud of and I am pleased that so many people are forcing themselves to go out to jobs that in other circumstances might not be that attractive. We know that most people—50% of the population—earn under £23,000. London MPs know that a lot of that money goes on rent for those in the private rented sector, and that those in the social housing sector still pay a lot of money for service charges and other things. Although I am very pleased about the employment statistics, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, we cannot just celebrate on that one fact alone; we have to consider the wider meaning, in terms of the level of income and the other costs that must be borne.
There is another thing to mention, of course, about trade being one of the general indicators of the economy. Today, the Financial Times shows the huge drop-off in both exports and imports for the UK, which is very troubling. We cannot say whether that is Brexit-related, of course, but what we can say is that it is related to uncertainty. Also in today’s Financial Times, I read that even the City of London—of course, as a London MP, I take an interest in jobs, not just the traditional City jobs but also those in all the supply chains that go into the City—seems to be losing its patience with the chaos around the Brexit negotiations. For example, when the Prime Minister gave her Mansion House speech, there was a lot of talk about, “Let’s be positive. We can do better.” However, there is now more and more concern from Catherine McGuinness, who is a leading member of the City of London corporation. For example, there is a real concern about the insurance industry and the financial services industry, and ensuring that we field the real economy efficiently. We feel that time is running out to mend the many fractures that Brexit has caused. For policy makers to have a chance of success, the City must first agree on its own priorities. So the City itself is confused, which is quite unusual for the City; City people are normally quite confident lobbyists, and rally both the Bank of England and the Treasury behind them.
Chris Green
I appreciate and recognise exactly what the hon. Lady is saying, but the strongest expression of that confidence and certainty about the future would be people choosing to remain in the City of London and the United Kingdom. Alternatively, they could head over to Paris and Frankfurt, but that has not happened in a substantial way; we do not want it to happen, but it has not happened in a substantial way. That goes against some of the fears that people had a while ago.
Catherine West
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I am not sure that he is accurate. My understanding is that many companies have now started to set up subsidiaries in the Netherlands, Berlin and other places—perhaps New York—and it would be remiss of us not to take that seriously. The City has wanted to give the Government time, but it is now getting frustrated. I understand that during the recess, when we were off doing constituency work or having a little break, members of the City of London went to see the Prime Minister and came out a little dissatisfied—because they are worried, I guess, but also because of the lack of coherence in the Brexit strategy, which is something that I, as a London MP, am particularly worried about.
My next point is about the national health service. We are all well versed in what was on the side of the bus and the promises of £350 million for the NHS, so I shall not go over those, but I want to make a point about the workforce. We seem to be in a parallel universe. We know that Brexit will have an effect on migration and it is the stated desire of the Prime Minister to reduce migration, but when our GP clinics and our secondary care—our hospitals—are crying out for talented doctors and nurses to come and serve our constituents when they are ill, it seems rather unadvised that the Prime Minister refuses to at least look at the migration quotas she seems to have set herself.
The other big issue regarding migration is, of course, international students, who, along with education, are one of our best exports. The shadow Minister has done an awful lot of work in that regard and I have followed up on it, trying to raise his concerns and those of others about placing education at the heart of things as one of our proudest exports, and looking again at the target for students. At the moment, there is a cap on international students that is counted as part of the total immigration cap, which seems a bit like cutting off our nose to spite our face. I hope that we will consider that matter urgently, particularly now that we have a new Secretary of State, who might have a different view and a little more sway and that, following the Windrush and other scandals, we will try to take a much more sensible approach to immigration.
I do not think that any of us who are on Twitter will have missed how the tone of the debate has deteriorated somewhat since the referendum. My neighbouring MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), has received the most horrendous abuse, not just because he has spoken out clearly in favour of remaining in the EU—fine, that is his position—but because of the colour of his skin. We have seen that again with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and I am sure that other Members have also experienced terrible racist remarks. I cannot help thinking that that has been part of the whole Brexit package. Indeed, I feel that there was a lack of leadership, originally, by Mr Cameron. He has gone now so we cannot ask him to come before us, but he promised that referendum without even indicating his plans for the economy or anything else, including for tackling what has become a terribly xenophobic debate, particularly on social media.
I briefly want to mention the leave campaign funding. In the past couple of days, a number of emails have been revealed that show the sheer scale of contact between members of the public who funded that campaign and the Russian Government.
Catherine West
That is a very good question, and I am sure that if we asked the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee they would get to the bottom of it if, indeed, the people who were requested to turn up did so. I have been astounded by the cheek of some people who will not come before a Committee of elected Members, and I am pleased that Mr Speaker has taken a firm line on that.
A point has been made that we need to develop more: is the funding for our political campaigning somehow being abused? Do we need to tighten up legislation, approaches and rules? I, too, am worried about that. We know that there is a rule that donations can come only from British residents who are on the electoral register but we must look behind the individual, at what they might be getting in return for their support for a particular side, as with the allegations in today’s papers about Mr Banks’s business interests and the sheer amount he gave to the leave campaign.
I want to touch on Northern Ireland. As someone who cares a lot about peace and is interested in all sorts of peace negotiations around the world, be they in Colombia, Cyprus or Israel and Palestine, I think that we have made much progress on peace in Northern Ireland. For me, that is the biggest issue, and not just on a pragmatic level. Before Christmas, in phase 1 of the Brexit negotiations, we saw that to be the sticking point, with everyone holding their breath as the Prime Minister spoke to Arlene Foster. That was a fudge, wasn’t it? It really just slipped over because it was the end of phase 1. I have a horrible feeling that we will gallop up to the end of the Brexit process and there will be exactly the same issue. Therefore, with your permission, Mr Austin, I thought I might spend one minute going through what I believe to be important in relation to the Northern Ireland question.
Peace in Northern Ireland is one of the largest concerns for all parties negotiating the withdrawal from the European Union. Northern Ireland remains at the heart of the negotiations due to its unique history. Its 300-mile land border with the Republic of Ireland, its at times splinted political structures, its economy and the lasting terrorist threat continue to cause concern. Many now worry that its economic and political fabric could crack as the UK meanders towards a hard Brexit, in part because joint EU membership helps to underpin the Good Friday agreement. The Irish Government have ceded articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, which claim jurisdiction over the whole island of Ireland, willing to rely on collective European identity to reassure nationalists in Northern Ireland that the island will come closer together.
The EU has played a large role in boosting Northern Ireland’s economy, through structural funds. In comparison with the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland benefits disproportionately from the common agricultural policy and if, as many expect, London’s fiscal transfers do not match the lost EU funds, its economy will be harshly hit. Leaving the EU also puts Northern Ireland at risk of losing future funding for peace and reconciliation programmes.
Meanwhile, Ireland, the EU and the UK Government have all repeatedly made clear their opposition to a hard border, something that locals and campaigners say could risk the peace process and hit cross-border trade and the economy. However, the UK Government currently rule out being in the customs union, and I await with bated breath the votes that come between now and 1 August to see how that resolves itself. In the absence of regulatory alignment, all sides are beginning to acknowledge that there will be a hard border, because what else could there be. That has led many of us, in different parties, to call for remaining in the customs union or, at a minimum, committing to regulatory alignment, and that is echoed by many, including Simon Coveney, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland’s European Commissioner, Phil Hogan, and even Michel Barnier. We cannot ignore the question of Northern Ireland and I am sure, instinctively, that we will end up with that being the sticking point at 11.59 pm on the day that Brexit is decided.
Finally, on the wider geopolitical picture, this weekend Mr Trump made a number of strange statements, including a questioning of NATO. The idea that America would leave NATO is rather strange, but his speeches, if read carefully, appear to suggest that. That puts a rather different shine on our relationship with Europe and I, for one, am much more concerned to hug Europe closer because of that. Some of Mr Trump’s values regarding not wanting to be part of the climate change process—
Chris Green
NATO is incredibly important, as are all our international relationships. In a conflict situation, would the hon. Lady depend more on Germany’s 1.1% or 1.2% of GDP on defence spending, or the United States’ 4%? Is the United States of America not living up to her international responsibilities in a way that Germany and many other European countries are not?
Catherine West
I do not think it was Mrs May or any of us who said we did not want the US to be in NATO. Unless I am mistaken—perhaps I am reading different newspapers—it was Mr Trump who was putting into question his commitment to NATO over the weekend. It raises questions in the same way as when he wanted to walk away from the Paris climate agreement. He was able basically to decide not to be part of that when almost every scientist internationally accepts that climate change is our greatest scientific challenge. In addition, some of his statements about ethnic minorities and the Muslim community in particular are deeply worrying. I feel they add to the sense of xenophobia that we are seeing not only in this country, but internationally. Such statements corrode our sense of our values as western powers—our values of human rights and a commitment to peace, stability and doing things right.
My deepest concern is about the international rules-based approach being deeply challenged by someone as important as Mr Trump. Last week, on the International Trade Committee visit to Geneva, I was able to speak to negotiators, who described the style of leadership as disruptive leadership. I am not sure what the best description for it is, except “deeply troubling”. This is a time for all of us in the west who are concerned about some of the international challenges to stick together. We should not tear ourselves apart or shout insults by tweet; we should pull ourselves together and face those challenges together. The whole debate on Brexit is corrosive. It fractures what is so important right now, which is to stick up for our values of human rights, peace, stability and security. I hope those who signed the petition will look at this debate and know we are taking these issues very seriously.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who introduced this debate very fairly, walking on eggshells as she did. I congratulate the petitioners, because it is right and proper that Parliament has the opportunity to debate these issues. I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West).
I want to keep my remarks very narrow, in the sense that I have been clear that I do not want another referendum. When I was in this place previously, I argued that the decision on the EU had to be taken by the British people. I was not directly involved in politics at the time of the referendum, but I thought the experience of the referendum was dreadful. It brought out the very worst in politicians and, dare I say, the public.
I am sure I am the only Member here who took part in the 1975 referendum, in which I voted. I was a member of the Labour party at the time—I have been one for 48 years now—and I remember that referendum being called out of weakness by the then Government, who were in direct conflict with their own party. There is nothing new in politics, is there? The referendum was conducted. It was not left versus right, because the left was split, the right was split and the centre was split, but compared with what happened in the recent referendum, it was so genteel. People actually argued their case. They did not involve themselves in personal invective, and they did not try to get money from wherever to allow the case not to be presented in the way that was best for the British public to understand, but slanted so that the British public ended up believing it was just about pure prejudice. That was not a good way to take the decision.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has since disappeared. I am clear that if we re-ran the referendum, things would not get any better. All the evidence is that another referendum would be much more divisive. What would it resolve? If leave won, it would confirm that leave had won, but that is the situation at the moment. If remain won, we would have “neverendum”, because there would have to be a play-off. That is the worry with having another referendum. I am someone who has argued that, in fundamental constitutional issues, there has to be a referendum, but I have changed my mind. I would be happy to bring forward a Bill to ban referendums in this country. They are alien to our form of parliamentary democracy. It might work in Switzerland or other countries, but it has not worked in this country. We have ended up with the worst-case scenario. We had a narrow victory on one side and a poor debate that did not yield the arguments that needed to be brought forward.
What is the alternative? It is about time Parliament reasserted its authority. We only end up with referendums when a Government do not feel they can get their business through and Parliament cops out and refuses to take responsibility. Parliament cannot cop out on this matter anymore. When we come to the end of the negotiating period, it has to look at what is on the table. To be fair to the Government, this week we are all trying to pre-empt what we think the final deal will look like. Those of us who are partial towards the customs union hope that, at the very least, the Government will move on that issue. On other issues, we will have to see.
Hon. Members should remember that it takes two to tango. We can have all the arguments we like on this side, but if the other side—the EU—decides, “That is not what we want”, we are back to where we started. To my mind, we should rule out a second referendum. We should at least give the Government some opportunity to negotiate, but with pressure from the Opposition, because that is our job. We have to make the Government’s life fairly unbearable. We will do that this week, and we hope they lose a few of the Divisions, because that will make things much more interesting. That is what Oppositions do, and it is what Parliament is there for. Governments have to try to withstand that pressure. They may or may not. The one thing I feel absolutely certain about is that it will be a disaster if we go along the referendum path again. It will lead to even more division.
Catherine West
Given there seems to be an impasse within the Government on which direction to take, does my hon. Friend agree that when the deal is complete, it might help if the Prime Minister went back to the people and said, “Is this what you meant?”?
Dr Drew
That is a wonderful notion, but what will come out of the negotiations, if anything, will be a complicated settlement. We could end up with no deal. That would be a disaster, because I fear we would then move towards free trade deals with Lord knows who. We have got a debate on Thursday on agriculture, which is my area of responsibility on the Opposition Front Bench. If we do not negotiate something, I fear we will end up with a real dog’s breakfast of agreements that we might be able to sign.
I know what my hon. Friend is saying. My problem is that it will still lead to an incredibly divisive outcome—people feel so strongly. Anyone who feels differently from me should say so and intervene. I have heard strong opinions on both sides, and I do not think that people have shifted, in the main. Some people will have done, because that is inevitable—some people shift between parties between elections, dare I say—but in the main, people are pretty clear in their views. If those opinions are stirred up by anybody or any side, things will only get worse.
We have to take responsibility, and it will not be easy. We are going to upset some people. Parliament will not necessarily be flavour of the month for those who feel we have come up with the wrong solution, but that is what they elect us for. That is why I have a problem with referendums. In a sense, they negate our power as parliamentarians to do what we believe is right. If people do not like it, they get rid of us. At the moment, if we go back to the referendum, I fear we will end up with an even more difficult outcome, whichever way it goes, and the debate will be dreadful, because what we have seen so far will be there with knobs on. People will feel even more strongly, and they will get up to even more antics because they believe that is their right. That is where we, as a democracy, will struggle, because we have to put things back together. At the end of the day, whoever is in power will have to try and run things for the whole of the country, divided or not. I worry that the further apart we get and the more divided the debate is, the more difficult it will be to put things back together again.
Catherine West
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about referenda. However, our result was not like the Republic of Ireland’s recent referendum result of 66:33, or whatever the maths is, and the difference was so fine. Does he not accept that, although I am not a great fan of referenda, and given that Mr Cameron has led us this far, a referendum is perhaps the only thing that could give either a stamp of approval or overturn things? I do not put any value judgment on either position. I am talking about giving clarity.
Chris Green
On the question of 52:48, a concern would be where to draw the line. The debate on the Scottish referendum result of 55:45 would then be opened up again, and we have to stop it now. A decision is a decision.
Dr Drew
Of course, the Scottish referendum had a 40% benchmark, which derailed the whole process for Scottish devolution for a time, so there are ways in which we can play tricks, but that is a problem. I do not think we can play tricks anymore. I think the general public will see through it and will feel let down.
We are going to take a lot of stick over the coming weeks and months—dare I say even years—but Parliament needs to reassert its authority to make decisions in the best interests of the people of this country. We individually stand or fall by that. It is easy to say that, eventually, there will be a fail-safe solution, but I fear that if we have got to that stage, it will not be a fail-safe at all and the people of this country will be at war with each other. I do not mean that in a nasty sense, but people’s opinions are divided on this issue. We might suggest having very strict guidelines on another referendum. There were supposedly guidelines on the previous one. Well, you could have fooled me. People simply misbehaved and said things that they thought were attractive and would win votes for their side, without any accountability whatever, so I would worry about that.
Parliament has to take a decision. It will be difficult. We have to get the Government back and hold them to account. We have to see what the final deal is. As I say, I fear a no deal situation. That might be where we push the Government back to say that that is not acceptable. We will be voting this week. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on the Front Bench might have things to say about that—perhaps not today, but in future. We believe there will have to be a deal, but, as I say, the referendum that could follow it, which might result in a divided outcome, is the worst possible outcome, so please, Parliament, make a decision.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Hugh Gaffney
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am really worried that there has been no White Paper published. That is a big concern for me because people ask me questions about it. Should the Government be held to account for not delivering a White Paper to the people of Great Britain?
Dr Drew
I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be helpful if parliamentarians had the evidence to start with, so that we could make up our minds. The public will not read it and make a decision. They will base their decision on prejudice, which is what we, effectively, catalysed in the debate that took place in the previous referendum. So, please, Parliament, reassert authority, hold the Government to account, force them to get a deal, and let us see where we go from there.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Austin, for allowing me to make a short speech. I apologise for being in the main Chamber, first for the Yemen statement and then for the G7 statement, but I had put in a request to speak in this debate when neither of those were scheduled.
I want to comment on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). He described the referendum two years ago as dreadful, and I agree with him on that point. I do not, however, agree with his conclusion that we should not have another referendum. It does not automatically follow that if we have a final say on the deal, or a people’s vote, that that referendum would be dreadful as well. That is not necessarily the case. From talking to people on both sides of the argument, I have found that the discussion we should have had before the referendum is the one that we have had over the past two years. People’s awareness of what it means is therefore much greater now than it was prior to June 2016. I am confident that, although any such campaign will never be 100% clean—I am certain of that—it will be a hell of a lot cleaner than the one we had two years ago, particularly if we make sure that certain safeguards are put in place, as has happened in referendums in other countries.
For instance, an independent arbiter can examine the claims made by both camps. I accept that, two years ago, people on both sides of the argument told porkies. They were, on occasion, mendacious and fantastical. On other occasions they were deluded, and in some cases their claims were all three of those things at once. We could have someone with the ability to say, “No, you cannot say that”, and clamp down on it straightaway.
We also need a much higher degree of awareness and checks and balances in social media campaigning, so that every single advert that goes out on Facebook—if we allow it—has the equivalent of the “printed and published by” that appears on the bottom of our leaflets, and people can see who it comes from. If it comes from me, they will see, “Tom Brake, Liberal Democrats”, and know it is an advert funded by me. Equally, if it comes from my Conservative or Labour opponent, they will know that as well. If it has nothing on the bottom of it and has therefore come from President Putin, they can draw their own conclusions about the possible source of that particular advert in a referendum campaign. I think we can do things differently.
There is another reason why opinions are so divided, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Stroud. There is nothing to suggest that, as the Government steamroller through the proposals that some Conservative Brexiters love so much, the nation will not be anything other than even more divided that it was when it voted in June 2016. He might think otherwise. He might think that the Government will somehow, miraculously, manage the process, but they have not even managed to unite their own Front Benchers, so how will they unite the country behind their proposals? Frankly, that will not happen. If we do leave, we will be as divided as we were before June 2016.
In some ways, therefore, having a final say on the deal, or a people’s vote, gives everyone the opportunity to look at what it means now that we have an understanding of what is involved. Rather than the European Union being about to give us billions of pounds, the truth is far from it: we are about to give it billions of pounds—up to £40 billion. If people understand the extent of what is involved, they will go into the campaign with a clearer understanding. If a people’s vote were to take place and we had a 10-week campaign that was relatively fair and properly administered, and if the country voted 52-48 for whatever deal the Government had secured, as far as I am concerned that would be it. We would have voted to leave the European Union and we would go, even though I dislike intensely that approach. At least most people would feel that they had had the campaign to which they were entitled—but never got—in June 2016. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Stroud that proceeding in the way proposed by the Government will ensure that the country is not extremely divided.
The petition gives rise to the question whether there should be a people’s vote, so I suppose the first thing to ask is whether one is wanted. The hon. Member for Stroud said that there has not been a shift in people’s views. Most polls suggest that there has been a slight shift in favour of remain. In Northern Ireland, which perhaps has more knowledge than anywhere else of the impact of Brexit, there has been a very large shift in support for staying in the EU.
Anneliese Dodds
I gently point out that this debate is not on the subject of having a people’s vote, but on Parliament’s ability to have more options as part of a meaningful vote, including—specifically for the petitioners—the option of remaining in the EU. I just want to clarify that, because many thousands of people signed the petition and it is important that we talk about the exact subject.
Tom Brake
I am very happy to do that. Of course, I think of Members of Parliament as people. Clearly we are entitled to a people’s vote, as are the people.
Does Parliament want to have a vote on this subject? Certainly, the Lords have made their views clear. From votes that have taken place so far, it seems there is perhaps not yet a majority in the House of Commons in favour of a people’s vote or a parliamentary vote that would allow us to choose between the deal the Government secure and staying in the European Union. That would be a meaningful vote. Parliament’s meaningful vote cannot be a choice between a deal that we know will be bad—the Government’s impact assessments have told us that whatever deal they come up with will be bad for us and shrink the UK economy—and crashing out of the European Union, which we know would be an absolute catastrophe and lead to blockages at every single port and airport around the country and to huge job losses. That is a not a meaningful vote. A meaningful vote would be one where the Prime Minister conceded that Members of Parliament could send it back.
Frankly, I think the Government are going to come up with a deal that no one likes. Which Member of Parliament, when the Government come forward with a deal, will stand up and say, “This is a brilliant deal—I absolutely love it”? I do not think a single Member of Parliament will stand up and say, “The deal the Government have struck is brilliant.” I will not, because I am a remainer, but nor will the members of the European Research Group, because they can see that the Government are making compromises. I suspect we will end up in a position where Members of Parliament are presented with a deal that no one will support.
Catherine West
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the closeness of the original vote? A no-deal exit is so far from any interpretation of the very close original referendum result. It would be different if it were a soft Brexit. Perhaps it could be argued that that was okay, but a no-deal exit is so different from that 52% to 48% result. We all have to interpret the wishes of our constituents, but no deal is so far removed from what people wanted from Brexit in the best case scenario.
Tom Brake
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. Members of Parliament should be offered a choice that reflects the choices that people made in the EU referendum campaign. I certainly cannot remember anyone saying to me, “I think the best thing for the United Kingdom would be to crash out overnight, on World Trade Organisation rules. That would be brilliant for British businesses and jobs.” If anyone had a constituent come to them and say, “That’s a fantastic solution,” they should stick their hand up now. No one will do so, because no one thought that that was a solution. Yet it seems that that is the choice that Members of Parliament will be offered.
Either we go for a deal that no Member of Parliament will support, whether they are a supporter of the ERG or a remainer like me, or we go for no deal, which nobody has ever supported from the outset. We are in a strange position. If the Government want to do this the right way, I suggest to them that remaining in the EU should be on the ballot paper. If it is, we might end up with a parliamentary outcome that reflects more closely the views of Members of Parliament and possibly those of the public more generally.
Members of Parliament should have a meaningful vote, for the reasons that I have set out. We are entitled to a real choice—not a Hobson’s choice between something catastrophic and something even more catastrophic. I will touch briefly on why there should also be a people’s vote. I have heard worrying reports from some Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, during the EU referendum campaign two years ago we had the murder of Jo Cox. Since then, Members of Parliament have been threatened for their views on our membership of the European Union. The only threats I have had are the comments that everyone who stands at a stall in favour of remain gets. A person stops, says, “You’re a traitor,” and then walks off.
That is the only sort of threat I have had, but I am aware that other Members of Parliament have had much more serious ones. There is a question mark over the extent to which they will be able to vote fairly and cleanly in the forthcoming votes. Potentially, a very small number of votes will determine the outcome, one way or the other. If Members of Parliament are scared of making the decision that they think is right because they have had threats to their lives—often the threats are not as serious as that, but they still have to be reported to the police—that is another reason why throwing this open to the country might be the right thing to do.
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for her earlier intervention, ensuring that I came back on track and that, as opposed to focusing all my effort on the people’s vote, I came back to the parliamentary vote, which is just as significant.
Dr Drew
My worry is that whatever pressure we come under in this place and outside, our role in another referendum would be even more dangerously vulnerable, because of the nature of that debate. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that it would be a better debate. I wish I believed him, but I think it would be a worse debate.
Tom Brake
We are each entitled to our views. I do not know what level of engagement the hon. Gentleman has had with people in his constituency or further afield, but all the discussions we are now having about whether the European arrest warrant will continue, the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Medicines Agency, and whether we should comply with EU standards on products are, frankly, discussions that were not had before the referendum. They are being had now, and I believe there is a greater awareness of the implications than there was before. That is why I have a hope, though this is not a certainty, that were such a referendum to take place it would be better informed than the previous one.
I should not be overly indulgent, Mr Austin, given that you have allowed me to speak in special circumstances. I congratulate the petitioners on securing more than 100,000 signatures, and on reinforcing the point that not only should there be a people’s vote in the wider country, but Members of Parliament are entitled to be treated as grown-ups and have the opportunity to take part in a meaningful vote—not one that presents us with two options that are completely unacceptable.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is as pleasure to begin summing up the debate. I commend the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for the detailed, well-informed way in which she presented the petitioners’ argument. Thank you, Mr Austin, for relaxing the dress code for those of us with a slightly different thermostat. Hon. Members will be immensely relieved to know that I do not intend to adopt the dress code that may have been sported by the hon. Lady’s constituents in Blaydon and people in other parts of the great city of Newcastle upon Tyne at the weekend—that might be a wee bit much for the parliamentary cameras.
We have had an interesting debate, but disappointingly a lot of hon. Members confused the question of a meaningful vote in the House of Commons with the question of a meaningful vote in another referendum. Frankly, that is disrespectful to the petitioners. I understand why people tend to conjoin the two proposals, but the arguments for and against them are completely different. I will focus on the argument for giving elected Members of Parliament a meaningful vote once we know the full details of the deal that has—or, heaven forbid, has not—been struck at the end of the negotiation process. Let us remember that the negotiation process has about four months to go, perhaps five, if we are lucky, so we are running out of time.
The hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) made a stirring speech, but missed the point entirely. I even gave him the chance to come to the point when I asked him how many people who voted in the referendum said in their vote that they wanted to leave the customs union and the single market. The answer is absolutely none. I do not know how many of those 17.4 million people wanted to leave both of those institutions. Perhaps all of them did; perhaps none of them did. We gave people a simple, binary, either/or choice on a question that was far too complicated to be resolved in its entirety by such a vote.
It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that the manifesto on which his party got its only overall majority in this place in 25 years said that we would stay in the single market. The manifesto on which it threw away its overall majority—against what, to begin with, looked like an utterly disorganised and divided Opposition—was the one in which it said that we would leave the single market.
Chris Green
I have seen numerous clips on television and read numerous articles in which campaigners from both the leave and the remain campaigns clearly stated that if we voted to leave the European Union, we would leave the single market and the customs union. I have seen abundant examples of people saying that. I am in no doubt that my constituents were perfectly clear about that.
Peter Grant
I have seen abundant statements from leading leave campaigners that said that if we left the European Union we would get £375 million for the health service. I have also seen abundant statements from the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Conservative party who said that voting for me to come down here was a declaration of a desire for Scottish independence. Sadly, it was not; we need a bit more than that.
I do not understand the nonsensical idea that the interpretation of any electoral contest should be dictated by what the losers said was going to happen. What a ridiculous way of interpreting a democratic contest! Most Opposition Members who spoke referred to the serious flaws in the way the referendum was set up and conducted, and the way the referendum rules were enforced—or, as is becoming increasingly clear, were not enforced. The fact is that the referendum produced a result. On a UK-wide basis, it produced a result; in England and Wales, it produced a result; in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it produced a different result, and we ain’t going to let people forget that in a hurry.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—my colleague on the Exiting the European Union Committee—rightly drew attention to a number of the false promises that were made during the leave campaign. It is a complete fudge to say, “That wasnae our leave campaign; it was somebody else’s leave campaign. A big bad boy leave campaign done it, and then they ran away”—in some cases, they ran away to become Foreign Secretary.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman has had enough chances to speak, between his substantive speech and his interventions. I note that when questions are raised about the conduct of the leave campaign, he wants to know which leave campaign it was. The question, then, is, which leave campaign won the referendum? If we do not know that, we cannot possibly know which version of leave people voted for.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who is backed up by a substantial majority in her constituency—her constituents are clearly in favour of remaining in the European Union—also drew attention to some of the flaws in the process. Questions must be asked about who provided the massive funding for the leave campaign. I know that opinion polls can sometimes be misleading, but there are certainly many indications that, if it is established that there was something seriously dodgy about how any of the leave campaigns were funded, even people who voted to leave will see that as cheating. That is simply not the way we do what passes for democracy in this place and in these islands.
Catherine West
The hon. Gentleman is making some very important points. Does he agree that, once we know more and journalists have an opportunity to uncover more—perhaps in their own emails—we might discover that there should be a police investigation into some of those worrying issues, such as how the money that pushed the vote in a certain direction was amassed?
Peter Grant
Some of the revelations of the past few days could certainly lead to that. We now need to ensure those in charge of the investigations have the information they need and are co-operated with fully when they carry them out. That, of course, includes Select Committees of this Parliament. It is fascinating that some of the champions of the “bring sovereignty back to Parliament” brigade ran a mile when Parliament asked them to come in and account for the way they ran their campaigns, but the leave campaign has been full of contradictions from the beginning.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) made an interesting speech. He, too, tended to talk about a second referendum, although he made the point that it is possible to reject the idea of another referendum while supporting the idea that Members of Parliament, who have been guaranteed a vote, have to be given a meaningful vote. I do not think that choosing between an option the Prime Minister says is unpalatable and one she says is unacceptable is anything like a meaningful vote.
I find it extraordinary that a Prime Minister who has told us so often that our relationship with the European Union cannot be based on a binary choice is so obsessed with giving us a binary choice when it comes to the crunch. She told us in October 2016 that controlling immigration is not a binary decision. In March 2017, she said:
“It is wrong to think of the single market as a binary issue”—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 190.]
In October 2016, she said that
“the way in which you deal with the customs union is not a binary choice”—[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 35.]
She must have meant it about the customs union, because she repeated that in November 2016, February 2017 and March 2018. That is only in the House of Commons Hansard. That does not include the number of times she has made the same comments at press conferences and in fancy speeches. In fact, the only time the Government seem to think that this is a binary question is whenever they want a decision to be made. In the referendum, we had a binary choice—in or out of the European Union, without any consideration of the infinite variety of what in or out could be. The Government palmed off any attempt to amend the article 50 Bill. We either had to support it in its entirety or reject it. In the first major speech the Prime Minister made about the European Union, she made a binary decision that we were leaving the customs union and the single market, before anybody, including the Prime Minister herself, had the faintest clue about where we would go after we had left those destinations.
Incidentally, I can advise the hon. Member for Bolton West that there is no such thing as a good no deal at the end of these negotiations. There is no such thing as a no deal that is better than a bad deal. Even the Government could not negotiate a deal worse than what no deal would mean for the people of these islands.
We are now being told that, when it comes to the last chance to avoid a catastrophic hard Brexit, we will be presented with a choice between a possibly horrific deal that the Government have agreed with the European Union and an even more horrific deal that they have failed to agree.
Chris Green
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incumbent not only on our Government but on the European Union to do the best thing for the peoples of Europe, which is to have a good negotiation and a good deal when we leave the EU?
Peter Grant
A better way of dealing with it is for the Parliament whose job is to hold the United Kingdom Government to account to concentrate on doing that and let our MEPs hold the European Commission and the European Council to account. The potential catastrophes at the end of the Brexit negotiations are piling up not because the European Union negotiators are not looking after the interests of the population of Europe, but because the United Kingdom Government are not looking after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. They are looking after their own political skins more than anything else.
Last week’s stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary is a perfect example of that. So they go to nose to nose, probably both threatening to resign if they do not get their own way, and they come up with some kind of fudge. They then realise that they have been so busy fighting to score points off each other that no one has had the idea of trying to put together a solution that will be even vaguely acceptable to our colleagues in the European Union.
The hard-line Brexiteers are bitterly disappointed that Europe has not fallen apart. The 27 remaining member states of the European Union are doing what Europeans do well in a crisis: they are sticking together. Speak to parliamentarians and Ministers in almost any of the 27 countries and there is no suggestion that the Foreign Secretary or the International Trade Secretary will somehow drive wedges between our neighbours in mainland Europe. That will simply not happen, and the sooner the UK Government understand that the better.
The UK Government need to understand that they took a unilateral decision—without the backing of a referendum—to leave the customs union and the single market, and only then started to look at what the consequences might be. We cannot blame the Europeans for that, or the Irish for the catastrophe that the Government may be stoking up on the Irish border; the catastrophe is entirely of the United Kingdom’s making, and it is entirely up to the United Kingdom to sort it out. We cannot ask everyone else to sort out the mess that our own Government have made for us.
There has to be a meaningful vote in Parliament at the end of the process. There has to be a meaningful chance for the devolved nations to have a say—the voices of the devolved nations have been silenced throughout, despite all the promises about them being listened to and respected. None of the three devolved nations has had any real chance to influence the discussions.
The Prime Minister wants us to have a straight binary choice between unpalatable and unacceptable. I hope that we will now say to the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government that neither of those solutions is an acceptable position to put this Parliament in. At the last gasp, Parliament should have the opportunity to say, “No, Prime Minister, we’re not doing it—take it back and think again”—[Interruption.]
Ian Austin (in the Chair)
Order. [Hon. Members: “It was outside!”] Was it? I thought it was someone’s phone in the Chamber. Apologies. I call Peter Grant—[Interruption.]
Peter Grant
They are indeed. I can speak for longer if you want, Mr Austin, but—
Ian Austin (in the Chair)
I thought that was coming from someone’s phone—apologies. Had you finished?
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the thoughtful way in which she presented the feelings of the petitioners. I also congratulate the petitioners on their engagement in this process.
The debate is timely—that is an understatement, given the week that we have ahead. Tomorrow the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill returns to the Commons, and this issue will be at the very heart of those discussions, because it is critical. The petitioners could have expected many more colleagues from all parties and a much longer debate had we not been preparing for discussion of the Bill this week. If anyone gets bored with that, we also have Brexit oral questions on Thursday, so it is a Brexit-packed week in Parliament.
The current situation is clearly something of a national disaster. We are having the most important negotiations for our country since the second world war, but we are being led by the most dysfunctional Government in our lifetimes. The uncertainty created by that was highlighted powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in terms of the impact on our economy. We have four months to go until the October conclusion of the negotiations. After two years, with just four months left, we see open warfare in the Cabinet. The Government are still incapable—this is quite extraordinary—of publishing the negotiating objectives White Paper they promised only four weeks ago.
Catherine West
Is my hon. Friend surprised that foreign direct investment has dropped by 90% from 2016 to today?
Paul Blomfield
I am not surprised, frankly. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Strasbourg talking to colleagues from different parties and countries, and they are shocked by Britain at the moment. Whatever their differences have been with us in the past, they always respected Britain as having an effective Government with a well-oiled diplomatic machine and being clear on their objectives and how to achieve them. They cannot believe the Government’s shambles, creating the uncertainty that my hon. Friend spoke about.
We still have no solution to the Irish border and to fulfilling the obligation made by the Government. We are no further forward on plans to protect what was originally described as frictionless trade—the Government are now backtracking on that and talking about a more limited ambition. We certainly have no clarity on how they will achieve the exact same benefits that we now enjoy in the single market and the customs union—a negotiating aim that they set for themselves and that the Prime Minister has repeated.
[Geraint Davies in the Chair]
The open warfare is incredible. Only last week the Foreign Secretary unfavourably compared the Prime Minister’s negotiating approach with that of Donald Trump. Is that what we have come to? The holder of one of the key offices of state is undermining his own Prime Minister and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said a little while ago on national television that he was being openly undermined and briefed against by other members of the Cabinet. This is a shocking position to be in.
With the Government paralysed by their own divisions, it looks increasingly as if Parliament will need—to coin a phrase—to take back control. It is ironic that some of the most vocal supporters of leaving the European Union, who made grand demands about parliamentary sovereignty central to their campaign, are so reluctant to concede that parliamentary sovereignty at this vital time. Those who cried foul about being a vassal state during the transition period seem to want a vassal Parliament in these vital negotiations. At this critical juncture, they say yes, they want parliamentary sovereignty—but not just yet, and not if it undermines their desire for the most extreme Brexit.
Wera Hobhouse
Does that not demonstrate that the hard Brexiteers want Brexit at any cost, including the cost of democracy?
Paul Blomfield
That is a point that I have made on the Floor of the House: there are those within the governing party—though clearly a minority—who want Brexit at any cost to the political stability of our continent and to the economy of this country. They are driven by Brexit above everything, and the Labour party and I do not believe that that is in the interests of this country.
Since First Reading, having a meaningful vote for Parliament on the final deal has been one of the Labour party’s key tests for the withdrawal Bill. We have been clear that a binary “take it or leave it” vote, in a zero-sum game tactic from the Government, will in no way constitute a meaningful vote. Crucially, that view unites Members across parties, and that is why the House voted last December for the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), to give Parliament a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement—to the consternation of the Government.
The Government immediately looked for wriggle room to avoid meeting that ambition of Parliament. The Lords therefore added greater clarity about what constitutes a meaningful vote, by accepting the amendment moved by the Conservative peer, Viscount Hailsham, which provides for a motion and an Act and, in the event of the motion not passing, for any decision on the next steps to be firmly in Parliament’s hands. With two defeats under their belt on the issue, the Government have now moved their own amendment—but they have not moved far enough.
Peter Grant
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it slightly ironic that the Government and their friends at the Daily Mail are decrying the anti-patriotic behaviour of lordships who agreed 15 amendments that the Government did not like at the same time as agreeing 160-plus amendments that the Government did like?
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. There has been a series of contradictions over the years in the position that some extreme Brexiteers have taken on the House of Lords—some have been its greatest champions and opponents of its reform.
Let me come back to the Government’s amendment. If the House was to vote down a motion under their proposals, Parliament would lose all influence. We would get no more than a statement from the Government informing us how they will proceed, frustrating the ambition of the vote that we had in December. Let us be clear: the Government’s amendment does not stop them sidelining Parliament from a crucial decision that will determine our future relationship with the EU, and nor does it prevent us from crashing out without a deal.
Viscount Hailsham’s amendment is explicit that if we do not accept the Government’s deal, it is for Parliament to determine the next steps. We will not be boxed into accepting “take it or leave it” options. We support the amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out, it is Parliament that is elected to determine the country’s future. Viscount Hailsham's amendment would ensure Parliament directs the Government on how to proceed in the article 50 negotiations, in whatever way it sees fit at that time.
It is right that, in the words of the petition,
“A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson's choice”.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) is no longer in his seat; it is unfortunate that he misrepresented the petition’s objective and the use of “evil”. I do not think that the petitioners mean that a deal of some sort would in no sense be acceptable; their words were simply that the
“choice between a bad deal and no deal”
is not.
When Parliament makes a decision, all options have to be open, but the petitioners need to recognise that Parliament does not have the political mandate to overturn the referendum. To do so would create a democratic crisis. Clearly, some argue for a further referendum—those arguments were exercised today by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), although at one point he seemed confused about which petition he was talking about; and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. But there is no indication of majority public support for a further referendum. There is growing support for a public vote on the final deal, but when polled, people do not want staying in the EU necessarily to be an option on the ballot paper—they are seeking a choice between that deal and a better deal, without looking back at the original referendum choice.
Paul Blomfield
I appreciate the Liberal Democrats’ love of referendums, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as far back as 2010, it was the Liberal Democrats who called for a referendum on our membership of the European Union—at the time, the Labour party opposed it—for that to be a decisive vote and for Parliament to accept the outcome. They are in a bit of a difficult position as they argue their point.
Wera Hobhouse
I do not think the hon. Gentleman answered my right hon. Friend’s question, so it would be nice to hear his answer. Precisely because we believe in debate and in the sensible arguments coming forward in the end, there is no contradiction in our saying, “Let’s discuss it to the end and take it to the people in the end.” That is the most democratic way forward.
Paul Blomfield
Let me return to the right hon. Gentleman’s question: it is not possible for us at this stage to predict how Parliament should exercise its response to the final deal. We need all the options to be available. I was simply pointing out that when the Liberal Democrats called for the 2016 referendum, they said that the results should be binding. It is a little ironic that, just as they jumped on that bandwagon, they are jumping on this one.
Mr Austin—sorry, Mr Davies—
Paul Blomfield
That was a seamless transition, Mr Davies.
The majority in Parliament respect the referendum result and those who voted in it, too. That majority knows that people voted to get out of the EU but that they did not vote to lose out. The majority wants a sensible approach to Brexit—no longer being in the EU but being in a customs union, with the closest possible relationship with the single market and continuing membership of the agencies that we built together.
The hon. Member for Bolton West was wrong in his characterisation of Labour’s position; our position was clear in our manifesto at the last election. The Prime Minister should reach out to the majority in Parliament and the majority in the country. If she comes back in October with a deal that fails the British people, it will be Parliament’s duty to set the direction for the next steps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for opening and contributing to the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and for speaking for the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition. The petition calls for Parliament’s vote on the Brexit deal to include an option to remain in the European Union. I applaud the way in which she presented the heartfelt views of the many people who took the time to sign the petition.
I thank also all those who spoke, whether in support of or in opposition to the petition. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) provided a balanced speech in which he acknowledged the vibrant democracy and lively debate that Brexit provokes and reflects. He has been a principled campaigner not only for his constituents but for the leave campaign. He made a powerful contribution.
The hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made thoughtful contributions, too. I was, however, concerned to hear a high number of negative words; the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), used the words, “catastrophe”, “disaster” and “warfare”. I must challenge the pessimism of hon. Members—I disagree with it and I will talk about that later.
I echo the sentiment of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central in response to the calls for a second referendum by the hon. Member for Bath and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). It is at odds with what their erstwhile leader Nick Clegg pledged in his now famous leaflet that called for a “real referendum” on the European Union, to settle the question once and for all. I do not know about them, but the events of 2016 looked pretty real and authentic to me. In their call for a second referendum, they are slightly at odds with what their previous leader advocated.
Suella Braverman
I am not going to comment on the speculative and hypothetical theories that are being circulated, but it is clear that the accusations that the right hon. Gentleman puts are not against the official campaign—the organisation that was nominated to lead the leave campaign in the 2016 referendum.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green made an interesting and wide-ranging speech about many aspects of the European Union—not least the economic case for remaining in the EU, if it is fair to describe it in that way—but again, I disagree with her sentiments. Output in the service sector is up, consumer spending is up, output in the manufacturing and construction sectors is up, growth forecasts have been revised up, foreign direct investment projects are up and unemployment is at a 40-year low—all that despite Brexit—so I question what economic picture she refers to.
Catherine West
What does the Minister make of the 90% drop in foreign direct investment, which has been commented on in the financial pages of every major newspaper? I am referring not to projects—I noticed that she qualified what she said by referring to projects—but to the 90% drop in FDI. Further, what does she make of the drop in house prices in high-value areas, which has an impact on supply chains?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady can refer to the Department for International Trade figures that I relied on, which show that foreign direct investment projects have been on the increase since the referendum. More broadly, we can also look at the number of global companies that are choosing the UK as an investment location. Most recently, Amazon announced the creation of 2,500 jobs by the end of this year. If that is not a vote of confidence in the British economy, I do not know what is.
Out of respect for the strength of our democracy and the public’s trust in our democratic institutions, I cannot respond in the way that the 100,000-plus signatories to the petition may wish me to. Simply put, remaining in the EU is not an option. I do not say that lightly, as I recognise the strength of feeling about this issue on both sides of the debate. The Government’s position is clear: we will respect the result of the referendum. The UK will not remain a member of the European Union. We are also clear, as a matter of firm policy, that our notification under article 50 will not be withdrawn. We will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019.
Before I turn to Members’ specific questions, let me set out why that is our policy and how it will be reflected in our approach to the vote on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship. When voters walked into polling booths on 23 June 2016, they had received through their doors a leaflet from the Government that set out very clearly, with no room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
That decision was equally clear. Voters were asked:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union”?
On 23 June 2016, 72% of the electorate voted on that question, and 17.4 million of them—52% of those who voted—made a clear and unambiguous decision. They instructed the Government to take the UK out of the EU—to leave.
Peter Grant
Although I do not agree with that decision, I accept that that instruction was given. Can the Minister tell me who instructed the Government to leave the customs union and the single market?
Suella Braverman
To me and to the millions of people who listened to any of the debate in the run-up to that important vote—as I said, there was a record turnout in many constituencies—it is clear that it was said time and again that leaving the European Union would mean leaving the customs union and the single market. Someone would have had to be pretty isolated and switched off to ignore that central feature of the debate.
That is the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action achieved by any Government in the United Kingdom. After the referendum, the House voted by a clear majority to authorise the Prime Minister to trigger article 50, which provided the legal basis for our withdrawal and commenced the leaving process. In the recent general election, more than 80% of people voted for parties committed to respecting the result of the referendum. That is why I must say at this point that the amendments recently tabled by Labour, and the move in its policy, confirm our worst suspicions. Labour’s policy is now for us to remain in the single market and the customs union, and it seems likely to accept free movement of people. That looks like remain, it sounds like remain—yes, it is a policy in favour of remaining in the EU.
The instruction from the referendum cannot be ignored. The Government are clear that the British people voted to leave the EU, so that is what we must do. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU noted,
“the electorate voted for a Government to give them a referendum. Parliament voted to hold the referendum, the people voted in that referendum, and we are now honouring the result of that referendum, as we said we would.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 818.]
The Prime Minister said in October:
“This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 45.]
The UK can trust this Government to honour the referendum result. We recognise that to do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people, which would have worrying implications for our democracy.
Right hon. and hon. Members may regret the chain of events I have described, and they may regret that there was not a caveat that the result of the referendum could be overturned by Parliament if it did not like the result of the negotiations, but the time to add that caveat was when the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed. I note that many Members in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and the shadow Minister, for instance—voted in favour of passing that Act. That Act did not say that the referendum result would be the best of three, it did not say that, if we did not like the first result, we could go away and rerun the referendum to get the result we wanted, and it did not say that there had to be a certain result. That was the time to make these suggestions—not now, after the public has voted.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister not agree that it is in the best interests of the whole country that we come together behind a decision that most people see as a good way forward that will lead to a good future? Does not her insistence on the result of this one Brexit referendum hide all our difficulties as a country? Is not the best way forward for us all to go to the people again and to clarify and confirm the matter so that we can all move forward together? I absolutely believe that we should get that clarification, in the interests of everyone—including the Government.
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady’s point is inherently contradictory. On the one hand, she says, “Isn’t it important that we all come together and unite and put our divisions behind us?” I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. I urge every Member present to get behind the referendum result and support the Government’s agenda.
On the other hand, however, the hon. Lady says, “Let’s have another vote”—a divisive vote on a contentious question again. I do not see how that sits easily. We have had a vote and the argument, the people have instructed the Government and we will deliver what they have told us to do.
Suella Braverman
I do not recognise any of the terms used by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe in a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, a hardest possible Brexit or a softest possible Brexit. I believe in Brexit. We are either in the European Union or out of the European Union. We are either in the customs union or out of the customs union, and either in the single market or out of the single market, with either free movement of people or no free movement of people.
Suella Braverman
I will not, because I need to get on with my speech and I have given way many times. Those are the objectives of the Government and of the Prime Minister.
As I have said, the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. That is why we know that it is incumbent on us to secure a deal that works for all of the United Kingdom and one that Parliament will want to support. As the Prime Minister has said, our decision to leave the EU does not mark an ending; it marks a new beginning for our relationship with our European allies. This is where I diverge from right hon. and hon. Members and their pessimistic view of negotiations so far: we have made significant progress on the negotiations. We have agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period.
Paul Blomfield
Will the Minister acknowledge that when Labour, echoing the views of business, the trade unions and many across the country, first floated the idea of a transitional period, the Prime Minister said she did not want that, so she defines progress as embracing Labour’s aspirations?
Suella Braverman
I do not think the Government have embraced Labour’s aspirations for a long time, and long may that continue. The implementation period was requested by the business community and the Government responded in kind. We have agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period, and on the wider withdrawal agreement we have locked down entire chapters on citizens’ rights and the financial settlement. As to our future relationship, we are confident that we will secure an ambitious future partnership with the EU, covering both a significant economic relationship and a deep security relationship. I look forward to the forthcoming publication of our White Paper, which will set that out in detail.
On the economic side, we want the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. We want the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours as well as the freedom to negotiate our own trade agreements around the world. That is why we are leaving the customs union and the single market. We want to ensure that UK companies have the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets, and to let European businesses do the same in the UK. We therefore propose a unique and ambitious partnership, based on our rules and regulations being the same at the start and on maintaining our commitment to free trade and high standards while allowing for us both to make changes where we want to in a stable and orderly way.
On security, we have been clear that we must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic to provide security for our citizens. We must not allow competition to inhibit our co-operation and jeopardise the security of our citizens.
To return to the detail of the petition, the Government have committed to holding a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after agreement has been reached on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, and the negotiations have concluded. The House will know that the Government have tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for consideration this week, which will write into law our existing commitment on the vote on the final deal.
Some reference has been made to amendment 19—the Hailsham amendment—which is of concern. The Government’s amendment in lieu will write into law our existing commitment on the vote in the final deal. The problem with the Hailsham amendment is that it would remove Parliament’s ability to direct the Government in the negotiations—sorry, the amendment we have tabled will remove Parliament’s ability to direct the Government in the negotiations, which is a dangerous element contained in Viscount Hailsham’s amendment. It is important that I get that right.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister has, on the second attempt, defined what the Government’s amendment seeks to do: to remove from Parliament the opportunity to direct the Government in the event of not accepting the deal. Does she not recognise that that would leave the Parliament of the United Kingdom powerless in the most important negotiations facing our country?
Suella Braverman
I disagree. The Hailsham amendment would set a dangerous constitutional precedent that would limit the Government’s prerogative in the act of international treaty negotiation. That would reduce the flexibility necessary for a successful negotiation, which is essential for the Government if we are to get the best deal possible.
Catherine West
Will the Minister accept that such language may lead to a groundswell for a further referendum? Parliament is not being given the genuine power to direct the negotiation, which is the original meaning of giving sovereignty to Parliament.
Suella Braverman
The Government have been clear, and our amendment reiterates that clarity, that Parliament will have the power to have a vote on the final deal. That will be a meaningful vote. The hon. Lady talks about parliamentary sovereignty and encouraging scrutiny, and a meaningful vote on the final deal is the best example and biggest opportunity for Parliament to have the very say she talks about on the deal presented and negotiated by the Government.
Suella Braverman
No, not at all. The Government amendment writes into law our existing commitment on the vote on the final deal. It makes it clear that that is the case. In no way does it reduce the opportunity for and power of Parliament to have a meaningful vote on the final deal.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister is of course right that the Government’s amendment does not remove Parliament’s power to have a vote. However, will she not accept, addressing her remarks to those behind the petition as well, that the Government’s amendment takes all meaning out of the word “meaningful”? It simply provides for Parliament to have a take it or leave it, like it or lump it, no real choice vote.
Suella Braverman
The Government will present to both Houses of Parliament the terms of the withdrawal agreement as agreed between the EU and the UK. We will also present the terms of our future economic partnership. There will be considerable opportunity for scrutiny of the terms of our final deal, and the motion will be presented to both Chambers. That will provide Parliament with the opportunity to accept or reject the deal—there is nothing more meaningful than that.
Peter Grant
On 25 April, the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee. Its Chair, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), was trying to tease out what the timing was likely to be and, in relation to the details of the final deal, the Secretary of State told us:
“We will know all of it, to the very last bits of the negotiation, way before we are in a position to put it to the House.”
Will the Minister clarify the Government’s present thinking on timescales? When can we expect to get that detailed statement on what the final deal will look like and on what date does she expect to put that to the House for a vote, so we can have an indication as to how many days, weeks, hours or minutes we will have for consideration before that?
Suella Braverman
We have been very clear, as has Michel Barnier on behalf of the EU, that we hope that by the time of the October European Council we will be in a position to have a full withdrawal agreement agreed between the EU and the UK, and detail on the terms of our future economic partnership.
Suella Braverman
I will not, because I am running out of time and the hon. Member for Blaydon needs time to respond. When the vote is held, it will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship. We expect and intend to achieve a deal that Parliament will want to vote in favour of. Again, I am confident that a deal that hon. Members will be able to support will be presented to Parliament. At the end of the day, it is mutually beneficial to both the UK and the EU to strike such a constructive economic partnership, one that supports our businesses, our citizens and our countries.
The choice that will be offered is not whether we should stay in the EU. We have had that debate. We have heard those arguments. This year is not the time to look into that issue again. This choice is in line with what the European Parliament is entitled to: a yes or no vote on the final deal.
The Government’s approach, which I have set out today, will no doubt disappoint those who have signed this petition, but that should not be misrepresented as ignoring their views. It should be understood as respecting the view of the majority of voters, who chose to exercise their democratic right in a referendum made possible by Parliament, on terms agreed by Parliament. For those who say a vote under the Government’s approach is not meaningful, I ask: what more meaning can there be than to show that Parliament will faithfully enact a decision that we trusted the public to make?
Liz Twist
It is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the petitioners to some of the points that have been made. I start by thanking the many right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the hon. Members for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Gordon (Colin Clark) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), and my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Stroud (Dr Drew), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
We have had a wide-ranging debate, not always on whether Parliament’s vote must include an option to remain in the European Union, but certainly reflecting the importance of the decisions that we are about to make on Brexit and its importance to our communities. It has been valuable and relevant to have that debate; the fact that we have this petition reflects the concerns of people on the ground.
The petitioners had asked to have a vote that would allow a remain option and was not just, “Take it or leave it.” The petitioners were clear that they want Parliament to have an option to remain. Sadly, I fear that, following the Minister’s response, it is now clear that that will not happen and that the vote will indeed be, “Here’s the deal; vote on it—whether you like it or not.” I suspect that the petitioners will be disappointed with the Government’s response.
To paraphrase the hon. Member for Bolton West, the best thing for us to have is a good deal. I think we can all agree on those words, but it is more difficult for us to agree what is a good, or a good enough, deal. That is the crux of the problem. We have heard that the Government amendment does not go far enough to address the concerns about a meaningful vote.
The Minister said she was concerned about the pessimism she has heard. I would say that it reflects an intense interest in the wellbeing of our country and our future development. I do not think it should be taken as pessimism, but as a sign of the vibrant interest from both the petitioners, all 113,000 of them, and Members of this House in ensuring that we have a deal that best reflects the interests of our country, and that we go forward on that basis.
To conclude, I remind the Chamber that the lead petitioner, who was here today—I think she may have run out of time, but she was here to hear much of the debate—was clear that the petition was about having a remain option. I am sure she will be disappointed. I hope she will be heartened by the shouting we heard a few moments ago outside the window, which to my ears said, “Stop Brexit!”; perhaps she can take comfort from that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 205169 relating to Parliament’s vote on the deal for the UK’s exit from the EU.
Written Statements
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competitiveness Council: May 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The Competitiveness Council (Internal Market and Industry) took place on 28 May in Brussels. Lord Henley ‘Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’ represented the UK.
The standing “competitiveness check-up” debate focused on the linkages between internal market integration and competitiveness in the EU. The Commission argued that its analysis showed that the single market generates significant economic benefits across a range of sectors. The UK underlined its continuing interest in the success of the single market, calling for continued progress, particularly on services, and for the EU to be a force for open international trade. Other member states picked up similar themes as well as other issues including access to finance.
The Council agreed a general approach on the revision of the mutual recognition regulation, which aims to improve the functioning of the mutual recognition principle for non-harmonised products in the single market. Member states were unanimous in their support for the presidency’s compromise text and praised the balance struck between the need to support businesses trading across the EU while allowing member states to protect their legitimate public interests.
The Commission presented its new proposal on platform to business relations, which it believed was a balanced attempt to improve transparency and predictability for users without creating undue burdens on platforms or stifling innovation. The UK responded positively but emphasised the benefits of platforms to businesses, particularly SMEs, and underlined the need to consult businesses. Other member states generally welcomed the Commission’s approach, but the debate displayed the tension between those that have legislated in this area and those who want to avoid fragmentation in the single market as a result of differing national legislation. Some hinted at their preference for further regulatory measures.
The presidency provided an update on progress in negotiations on the copyright package. Member states also responded to the UK’s ratification of the agreement on a unified patent court.
The Commission presented its latest package of digital single market proposals, which focus on the improved use of data at EU level as a tool to drive innovation.
Ministers discussed the opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence, including the role of public and private investment, the impact on labour markets, and ethical and legal questions.
The Commission provided information on its “new deal for consumers” proposal, confirming its ambitious timetable for adoption by May 2019. Some member states raised the dual quality of products as a key concern.
The Commission also presented its company law package and a proposal amending the supplementary protection certificates regulation for the export of medicinal products.
The presidency also provided updates on work in the area of tourism and within the SOLVIT network; the Austrian delegation presented its priorities as incoming presidency.
The Competitiveness Council continued on 29 May covering research, innovation and space. I represented the UK.
The Council held a policy debate on the future of European space policy. The UK emphasised the global nature of the space sector and the long heritage of technical excellence and research within the European space agency. The UK also outlined the case for continued full involvement in EU space programmes such as Galileo and Copernicus.
The Council continued with a discussion on the progress report on the regulation on establishing the European high performance computing joint undertaking. The UK assured the EU of our commitment to continuing collaboration in science and innovation and highlighted the importance of a continued focus of wider programmes on excellence. Following the discussion, the Council held a plenary session providing an update on the progress of the regulation.
The following sessions adopted two Council conclusions: the first on accelerating knowledge circulation in the European Union and the second on the European open science cloud.
The Council then agreed a general approach on the regulation on the research and training programme of the European atomic energy community (2019-2020) complementing the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation. Ministers agreed to the approach set out by the Commission.
The Council held a policy debate on research and innovation within the context of the next multiannual financial framework. The UK noted the value to the EU of the UK’s strength in research and innovation both in terms of results and of expertise in supporting research and innovation as well as emphasising the UK’s continuing desire to engage in European collaborative research and innovation programmes.
The Commission provided information on the outcome of the presidency event dedicated to space (Sofia, 17-19 April 2018). The Council concluded with Austria’s presentation of its incoming presidency work programme.
[HCWS752]
Energy Council: 11 June
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
The Energy Council will take place on 11 June in Luxembourg.
The Council will discuss the regulation on the agency for the co-operation of energy regulators (ACER) with the presidency hoping to reach a general approach.
Under AOB, the presidency will provide an update on the current state of play in the negotiation of the regulation on governance of the energy union, the directive on renewable energy and the directive on energy efficiency. The Commission will then provide information on recent developments in the field of external energy relations. Finally, the Austrian delegation will provide information on the work programme for their forthcoming presidency.
[HCWS749]
Finance (No.3) Bill: Draft
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government will introduce Finance (No.3) Bill following the Budget in the autumn.
In line with the approach to tax policy making set out in the Government’s documents “Tax Policy Making: a new approach”, published in 2010, and “The new Budget timetable and the tax policy making process”, published in 2017, the Government are committed, where possible, to publishing most tax legislation in draft for technical consultation before the legislation is laid before Parliament.
The Government will publish draft clauses for Finance (No.3) Bill on Friday 6 July 2018, along with accompanying explanatory notes, tax information and impact notes, responses to consultations and other supporting documents. All publications will be available at www.gov.uk.
[HCWS757]
ECOFIN: 25 May 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 25 May 2018. EU Finance Ministers discussed the following:
Early Morning Session
The Eurogroup President briefed the Council on the outcomes of the 24 May meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU.
Banking Package
The Council agreed a general approach to the banking risk reduction package including proposals for legislative amendments to the capital requirements regulation (CRR) and directive (CRD), single resolution mechanism regulation (SRMR), and the bank recovery and resolution directive (BRRD).
Strengthening administrative co-operation
The Council discussed measures to strengthen administrative co-operation in the area of VAT, but were unable to reach agreement on a general approach.
General reverse charge mechanism
The Council discussed proposals to allow member states to apply a temporary VAT general reverse charge mechanism, but were unable to reach agreement on a general approach.
E-publications
The Council discussed proposals to allow member states to apply reduced rates of VAT on e-publications, but were unable to reach agreement on a general approach.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The Bulgarian presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
European semester
The Council adopted Council conclusions on the in-depth reviews of macroeconomic imbalances in member states as part of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure, and the implementation of 2017 country-specific recommendations as assessed in the Commission’s Country Reports, published on 7 March.
2018 Ageing report
The Council adopted Council conclusions on the 2018 Ageing report on age-related spending and the sustainability of public finances.
[HCWS753]
Bosnia and Herzegovina EU-led Mission: Call-out order
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
A new order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service in support of the United Kingdom’s contribution to the EU-led mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
At the request of DSACEUR, the Operational Commander, the UK has agreed to generate an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance task force to enhance his situational awareness in Bosnia and Herzegovina over the period of the general election in October 2018. This capability will operate in parallel with and within the existing EUFOR framework to provide command and control for UK forces.
The planned uplift is consistent with Her Majesty’s Government’s objective of having a greater ambition for engagement with the western Balkans and sends the clear message of UK commitment to European security despite Brexit.
Some of the specialist skills needed to meet this requirement are held within the Army Reserve. UK forces will deploy for a period of six months with a planned deployment in mid-August 2018. The number of reservists anticipated to deploy as specialists or in support of regular units is estimated at up to eight personnel.
The order took effect from the beginning of 30 May 2018 and shall cease to have effect at the end of 29 May 2019.
[HCWS750]
Education, Youth Culture and Sport Council
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport (EYCS) Council took place in Brussels on 22 and 23 May 2018. Lord Ashton of Hyde represented the UK at the Youth session of this Council on 22 May. The UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Katrina Williams, represented the UK on 23 May for the meetings on Culture and Audiovisual and Sport.
Youth
This session of the Council began with the adoption of Council conclusions on the role of young people in building a secure, cohesive and harmonious society in Europe. The Council adopted Council conclusions on the role of youth in addressing the demographic challenges within the European Union.
A policy debate was then held on the future priorities for EU Youth policy.
In addition, there was information from the Commission on European Youth Together, followed by information from the Belgian and French delegations on the Franco-Belgian declaration of Ministers responsible for youth on the prevention of violent radicalisation.
Culture/Audiovisual
This meeting began with the adoption of Council conclusions on the need to bring cultural heritage to the fore across policies in the EU.
There was also a policy debate on the long term vision for the contribution of culture to the EU after 2020, in particular looking forward to the next multiannual financial framework (2021-2027).
Additionally, there was a public deliberation of current legislative proposals. For this, the Council first welcomed information from the German delegation on the directive amending directive (2006/112/EC) as regards rates of value added tax—actively engaging in negotiations from a cultural policy perspective. In extension to this, information was provided by the French delegation on the regulation on the import of cultural goods. No legislative decisions were made in these debates, so there are no implications for the parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
Information was provided by the Lithuanian and Luxembourg delegations, on their respective hosting of the European Capitals of Culture 2022.
Sport
The sport session of EYCS began with the adoption of Council conclusions on promoting the common values of the EU through sport. This was followed by a policy debate on the commercialisation of elite sports and the sustainability of the European model of sport.
The EU member states represented in the World Anti- Doping Agency Foundation Board presented information on the Foundation Board meeting held on 16-17 May. The French delegation presented information on the informal meeting of the EU Minister for Sport (held in Paris on 31 May 2018), where there was the signing of a declaration for a Europe of Sport looking to the horizon of the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Other
The Austrian delegation set out their work programmes as the incoming presidency, for the second half of 2018. They highlighted a number of priorities for their presidency. These priorities included a focus on the work plan for culture 2018 plus, the successor programme to the Creative Europe programme and enhancing the principle of subsidiarity.
[HCWS756]
Death Certification England and Wales: Reforms
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) has made the following statement:
Between March and June 2016 the Government consulted on a package of reforms to the death certification process and the introduction of medical examiners. The reforms aim to improve engagement with the bereaved in the process of death certification and offer them an opportunity to raise any concerns, as well as improving the quality and accuracy of medical certificates of cause of death. Safeguards will be enhanced in the process to enable medical examiners to report matters of a clinical governance nature to support local learning and changes to practice and procedures.
As part of the drive to further improve patient safety, I have today published the Government’s response to consultation on the introduction of medical examiners and the reforms of death certification in England and Wales, and a copy is attached. This sets out the Government’s intention to introduce a system of medical examiners in England. The Welsh Government consulted separately in Wales.
Medical examiners are a key element of the death certification reforms, which, once in place, will deliver a more comprehensive system of assurances for all non-coronial deaths regardless of whether the deceased is buried or cremated. Medical examiners will be employed in the NHS system, ensuring lines of accountability are separate from NHS acute trusts but allowing for access to information in the sensitive and urgent timescales to register a death.
The response to the consultation demonstrates that there is widespread support for the aims of the reforms and for the introduction of medical examiners, but there were concerns about some aspects of the proposals. In particular concerns were raised about how the proposed model, based in local authorities, would work in practice and about the timeframes for implementing the system. Feedback on a proposed funding model was also received.
Since the Government consulted on the package of death certification reforms, events have moved on. New information about how a medical examiner system could be introduced has been generated by the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) medical examiner pilot sites and early adopters of the medical examiner system, as well as from the learning from deaths initiative.
There will be two stages to funding the ME system to enable its introduction while legislation is in progress. Initially, medical examiners will be funded through the existing fee for completing medical cremation forms, in combination with central Government funding for medical examiner work not covered by those fees. Following this interim period and when parliamentary time allows for the system to move to a statutory footing, the funding of the system will need to be revisited. The existing medical cremation forms and fees payable associated with those forms will continue to apply for the interim period.
The Government have proposed that all child deaths (up to age 18) be exempt from the cost associated with the medical examiner system. This aligns with the broader purpose of the Government’s recent announcement about steps to ensure that no bereaved family will have to pay for the essential costs of burying or cremating their child.
Attachment:
1. Response to consultation (180611 Government response to ME and death certification consultation.pdf)
Attachment can be viewed online at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-06-11/HCWS755/
[HCWS755]
Gross Negligence Manslaughter in Healthcare: Review
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
On 6 February 2018 I informed the House that I had asked Professor Sir Norman Williams to carry out a rapid policy review of gross negligence manslaughter in healthcare settings. This review was prompted by concerns among healthcare professionals that errors could result in prosecution for gross negligence manslaughter, even in the face of broader organisation and system failings. In particular, there was concern that this fear had had a negative impact on reflection and learning by healthcare professionals, which is vital to improving patient care.
My Department is today publishing the report of Sir Norman’s rapid policy review.
Any investigation of a healthcare professional for suspected gross negligence manslaughter begins with the death of a patient a—life needlessly cut short and a family grieving. Sir Norman and his Panel have heard from such families. Their experiences were vital in informing this review and I would particularly like to thank them for their courage in providing evidence to the review.
The report finds that prosecutions and convictions of healthcare professionals for gross negligence manslaughter are rare. It also finds that the legal test for the offence is set at an appropriately high level. This should reassure healthcare professionals that only where conduct is “truly, exceptionally bad” and in consideration of “all the circumstances” will the bar for gross negligence manslaughter be met.
However in order to provide greater consistency the report makes recommendations to improve the investigation of allegations of gross negligence manslaughter involving healthcare professionals. These include:
developing an agreed understanding of gross negligence manslaughter that reflects the most recent case law;
improvements to the way that healthcare professionals provide expert advice and evidence; and
improvements to local investigations into unexpected deaths in healthcare to provide a full understanding of the cause of death, ensuring improvements are made to reduce the likelihood of similar incidents.
The report also considers the impact of criminal and regulatory investigations on the willingness of healthcare professionals to reflect on their practice. It finds that reflective material is rarely sought in such investigations. Nonetheless, in order to provide clear assurance to professionals, the report recommends that those regulators that have a power to require information from registrants when investigating their fitness to practise should have this power removed in respect of reflective material.
Finally the report looks at the regulation of healthcare professionals. It makes a number of recommendations for further work to understand inconsistencies in the way that different regulators carry out their fitness to practise functions. It also finds that the General Medical Council’s right to appeal decisions of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service has resulted in a lack of confidence in their regulator as well as having an unanticipated impact on the willingness of doctors, especially trainees, to reflect fully on their practice. Since the PSA has a near identical right of appeal to Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service decisions, it is clear that there would be no gap in the law where regulatory action is being taken as a result of a serious criminal conviction, and the report recommends that the GMC’s right of appeal should be removed.
These recommendations aim to support a just and learning culture in healthcare, where professionals are able to raise concerns and reflect openly on their mistakes but where those who are responsible for providing unacceptable standards of care are held to account. This will support improvements in patient safety.
I thank Sir Norman and his panel for their work in delivering this important report. I accept the recommendations in full.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-06-11/HCWS751.
[HCWS751]
Rough Sleeping
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
I am today announcing the allocation of a targeted £30 million Rough Sleeping Initiative fund to support those sleeping rough and those at risk of sleeping rough in 83 local authorities with the highest numbers of rough sleepers.
On 30 March 2018 we announced a new, cross-Whitehall, multidisciplinary Rough Sleeping Initiative. A £30 million fund, targeted at areas with the highest levels of rough sleeping, was part of that package to support the work of the Rough Sleeping Initiative team.
Over the last few months our team of expert practitioners have worked closely with local authorities and the Greater London Authority (GLA) to identify service gaps and create tailored packages to tackle rough sleeping in their area this year. Together they have co-produced bespoke plans to tackle rough sleeping based on local government and third-sector knowledge of what works.
This represents a first significant step in our plans to reduce rough sleeping. It will be followed by a cross-Government strategy, published in July, which will set out how we intend to meet the manifesto commitment of halving rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminating it altogether by 2027.
This funding will provide for over 500 new staff focused on rough sleeping. This will include more outreach workers to engage with people on the streets, specialist mental health and substance misuse workers and dedicated co-ordinators to drive efforts to reduce rough sleeping in their areas. It will also provide for over 1,700 new bed spaces including both emergency and settled accommodation.
The new Rough Sleeping Initiative team will work closely with local areas to implement the plans and to monitor their progress.
In recognition of the expertise needed to deliver reductions in rough sleeping immediately, Jeremy Swain, currently chief executive of the homelessness charity Thames Reach, has been brought in to lead the Rough Sleeping Initiative. Jeremy is an outstanding candidate for this position, and he brings with him 30 years of invaluable frontline experience. He will be in post by early July.
A full list of the individual amounts allocated to the 83 local authorities and the GLA has been published on www.gov.uk. Further funding for 2019-20 will be announced shortly.
I am confident this package will achieve substantial results in these areas of high need. It will also build upon the work we have already undertaken in order to meet out manifesto commitment this work includes: piloting the internationally proven Housing First approach in three major regions of England; allocating over £1.2 billion in order to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping, including more upfront funding so local authorities can proactively tackle homelessness pressures in their areas; and also the recent changes made under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 which means that more people will get the help they need and at an earlier stage—preventing a homelessness crisis from occurring in the first place.
[HCWS754]
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
I am pleased to announce that my Department will today publish an impact assessment for the EU-Japan Economic Partnership agreement (EPA). I have separately written to the Scrutiny Committees in both Houses of Parliament such that they can consider this evidence as part of their important scrutiny of this agreement. A copy of this impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The European Union and Japan concluded negotiations on this agreement in December 2017, and have announced their intention to sign this agreement at an EU-Japan summit in July, subject to approval by EU member states in the Council of the European Union.
This agreement will promote bilateral trade and economic growth between the EU and Japan by eliminating most tariffs and reducing non-tariff measures that businesses face when trading goods and services and investing.
The Government remain committed to supporting the EU’s ambitious trade agenda including the free trade agreements it is putting in place and to date has strongly supported the EU-Japan EPA negotiations.
The Prime Minister and the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed in August 2017 to “work quickly to establish a new economic partnership between Japan and the UK based on the final terms of the EPA” as the UK leaves the EU. The UK-Japan Trade and Investment Working Group, established last year by the Japan-UK joint declaration on prosperity co-operation, is tasked to deliver on this commitment and met for the second time in May.
[HCWS747]
Contingency Liability: Notification
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing three contingent liabilities relating to a tripartite deal between Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL), First Greater Western Limited (FGW) and the Department for Transport.
Unfortunately, due to the urgent need to finalise the deal and the confidential commercial nature of the negotiations it was not possible to notify Parliament of the particulars of the liability and allow the required 14 days’ notice prior to the liabilities going live. A delay would have resulted in higher HS2 costs and an increased scheduling risk impacting on the December 2026 opening date for phase 1.
The main element of the deal is a service agreement between FGW, HAL and Heathrow Airport Operating Company (HEOC) for the continuation of non-stop rail services between Paddington and Heathrow Airport. Under this agreement FGW will assume operation of Heathrow Express services. Although this is an agreement between private sector companies, there are significant benefits to the Department, in particular, savings generated from not building a replacement depot for Heathrow Express rolling stock at Langley (the land on which the current depot is situated at Old Oak Common is needed by HS2 for the construction of the high speed railway).
In order to conclude the deal, and secure departmental/HS2 benefits, the Department needed to offer indemnities in relation to three risks that the parties were unwilling or unable to assume or manage. The financial exposure is not high—a conservative estimate is c£12 million. But they are unusual and outside the Department’s normal course of business.
The three contingent liabilities are: first, indemnifying FGW against the cost of any delay to delivery of new rolling stock required to operate Heathrow Express services. The Department’s exposure is estimated to be £2.25 million; second, indemnifying FGW against the cost of any redundancies following the transfer of staff, mainly drivers, from HAL to FGW. The cost is estimated to be c£3.2 million; third, an indemnity against contagion from a wider industrial relations dispute—nationwide or franchise wide. The exposure is estimated to be £6.8 million.
The Treasury approved these liabilities before they were activated. However, if any Member of Parliament has concerns, he/she may write to me within the next 14 parliamentary sitting days. I will be happy to examine their concerns and provide a response.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-06-11/HCWS748.
[HCWS748]
Grand Committee
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill
Monday 11th June 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 View all Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 100-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 88KB) - (8 Jun 2018)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting—an unlikely possibility—the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Members will need to vote in the Division Lobbies downstairs in the usual way.
Clause 1: Cap on standard variable and default rates
Amendment 1
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Good afternoon and welcome to Committee stage. Amendment 1 would ensure that the cap is introduced as soon as possible and proposes that, from the passing of the Bill, Ofgem should seek to bring in its provisions within five months. We all realise the importance that Ofgem attaches to the time it needs to get going with the provisions and the modifications to the licence conditions that need to be in place for this to happen.
The amendment would make sure that there is no drift in that process. It is very important for various reasons. First, fuel poverty is of great importance to an awful lot of people who struggle with their energy bills. The UK has the second-worst rate of excess winter deaths in Europe. Two-fifths of those aged over 65 surveyed by comparethemarket.com said that they would ration their energy use over the winter because of increasing costs.
The other aspect of which we must be cognisant is the change in energy use as British Summer Time comes to an end. First Utility’s analysis of energy usage data around daylight saving from the last three years revealed an average 18.7% rise in electricity use as we move from British Summer Time into Greenwich Mean Time. Cold weather payments are very effective for each seven-day period of very cold weather between 1 November and 31 March. We therefore place great emphasis on Ofgem maintaining the process and having all the necessary conditions in place for the Act to commence. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I hope we shall make rapid progress on the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for moving his amendment so quickly. I shall just point out that it refers to,
“28 October 2018 or five months after this Act is passed (whichever is the sooner)”.
As it is already June and Royal Assent is unlikely to be before July, whatever happens, the amendment could mean only 28 October because five months from Royal Assent would obviously be after that date. However, I share the noble Lord’s desire to see the cap in place as soon as possible. Certainly, we would like to see it in place before the end of the year so that millions of families have protection for the worst of the winter.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that the nights start drawing in on 28 October. Actually, they start drawing in from the middle of this month, in a couple of weeks’ time, which is rather depressing. As he suggested, that means bills start climbing in those months. That is why we are pressing on with the legislation and I am grateful for the co-operation of all Members in getting this on the statute book as quickly as possible. We are aiming, subject to the will of Parliament, for the Bill to be passed before the Summer Recess.
The Bill already requires Ofgem to put the cap in place as soon as is practicable. Ofgem’s chief executive, Dermot Nolan, has committed to imposing the cap in the minimum timeframe that it can manage without risking the integrity of the process of consultation, notification and modification of supplier licences. Mr Nolan said as much in his evidence to the BEIS Select Committee.
Good progress has already been made. Ofgem has published a number of working papers setting out its emerging thinking. This culminated in a consultation on the design of the cap, which was published recently. The consultation sets out a clear timetable for implementation of the cap by December 2018. Ofgem will be ready, after the Bill is passed, to undertake the relevant statutory consultations and make the licence modifications that the Bill requires.
We appreciate the desire to hold Ofgem to a date by which the cap will have to be in place. However, the amendment potentially risks the integrity of the cap if it means that, to meet that date, Ofgem may have to radically speed up its design and consultation processes. Doing that would hugely increase the risk of a successful legal challenge—something that we will discuss later on—and that is likely to delay the implementation of the cap.
As I said, I agree with the noble Lord that the aim must be to get the price cap in place as early as possible before the cold weather arrives. However, there is nothing to be gained by making this a statutory deadline and it potentially creates new risks for the implementation of the cap. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the timing behind the Bill. We certainly agree that the schedule is a very tight timetable for everything—all the consultations—to take place. However, we feel that the Bill has been very well flagged up to all the companies concerned and to Ofgem. I am sure it is making progress even now on what needs to be done to get the Bill enacted as soon as possible. I agree that, looking at the scheduling of the amendment with where we are now, 28 October would be the default. Nevertheless, we are keen that we keep a tight look, as we go through the Bill and when we come back for Report, at all the progress that has been made. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“( ) the need to ensure that holders of supply licences communicate with domestic customers in appropriate formats about the different domestic supply contracts which are available, including any tariff cap which may apply.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I shall speak also to Amendment 9 in my name and comment on some of the other amendments in this group.
These amendments focus on communication, particularly with vulnerable people who cannot necessarily use electronic means or who have other special needs. It is important that there is an obligation on the authorities to communicate the tariff cap “in appropriate formats”, so that those who receive this information will able to choose the means by which it takes place. Amendment 9 requires the same provision of information,
“relating to different domestic supply contracts and tariff cap conditions”.
It is the same argument: people must have the information so that they are able to choose what tariffs to go for.
I received some information from a group called Keep Me Posted, which is a well-known and probably much-loved organisation. It is a coalition of leading charities, consumer organisations, trade unions and businesses, which campaigns to ensure that all service providers offer consumers the choice to receive a paper version of their bill. That is not in the amendment but it is something that I hope the Minister will consider. Independent research by a company called Opinion Research Services found that 81% of UK adults want to choose how they receive important information such as bills and statements. But, as we all know, some businesses are restricting access to paper bills and statements, and if customers do not have these, it is difficult for them to make an informed choice.
There was another study by London Economics in 2015 about managing money online—which is what we are really talking about—involving 2,399 consumers. Half of them were sent a mock bank statement and a notice of change by post; the other half were sent them electronically. The result was that 82% of those in receipt of a paper statement correctly recalled their balance, as opposed to a meagre 32% of those who received the electronic billing. That is a really strong argument, I suggest, for being able to choose the means of receiving this information in a way you can understand and then taking action.
It is good that the Government have required the banking sector to issue statements once a month and free of charge on what I think is called a “durable medium”—I would call it paper—or something more accessible, going back at least five years. This is good at a time when there is greater competition within the banking industry and some may wish to cut their costs in that way. I hope that the amendments in this group will provide some incentive to Ministers to find ways of ensuring that even the most disadvantaged, who cannot do electronics or may not be able to see well or who have another disability, can get the same information in an appropriate format so that they can make the choices which the Bill is clearly trying to achieve. I beg to move.
Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2)
Lord Lennie
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, this issue is especially relevant to the green challenger companies coming into the market, particularly those that have R&D interests. Suppliers must also be informed about tariff cap exemptions and it may be that these are being considered for green energy companies with R&D interests. That is not the same as saying that we have any sympathy for the possible gaming that could go on with green tariffs among the big six and other suppliers. They may just be billing companies that cite a certain percentage interest in the green market and then seek to have that applied to their exemption from the tariff cap when it comes into effect. That is not the purpose of the amendment; it should apply purely to the 90%-plus green provider and supplier companies. Obviously we take on board and support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, but ask that this amendment also be considered. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, these amendments are grouped and it is open to any noble Lord to speak to any of them as they wish. I would suggest that the noble Baroness speaks to her amendment.
Baroness Featherstone
I thank the noble Lord. This amendment is about the duty on energy companies to communicate properly with their customers. I raised concerns at Second Reading that there is a possibility that energy companies might not be totally up front and honest with customers about the circumstances surrounding the introduction and execution of an energy price cap. I am particularly concerned that some companies may not be up front about the facts: this is a temporary cap, ordered by Parliament, the level of which is set by Ofgem to protect consumers on standard and default tariffs from excessive charging. Companies must not seek to absolve themselves from blame for the fact that a cap is being introduced—an action that they have necessitated. Nor must they be able to play it off as some sort of benevolence introduced by them to help their customers. I am also concerned that companies might imply that the cap brings about the best deal for customers and indicates in some way that they need not shop around.
Communications from suppliers have not always been totally clear, but they need to be. The last thing we need in setting and executing the cap is for communications to confuse, entice or entrap customers into any false beliefs or misunderstandings. The amendment seeks to ensure that suppliers cannot use the setting of a cap as a marketing opportunity. Companies are very clever in their use of marketing language to seduce customers into perhaps believing that the cap is protecting them in more ways than it was created for. We should not provide any opportunity for suppliers to mislead consumers, accidentally or otherwise, into believing that the price cap is beneficial in any other way or being put in place for any purpose other than that for which it was intended; namely, that it is as a temporary cap until such time as circumstances dictate that it must be lifted. It must not allow the supplier to appear to be the instigator of the cap. Nor must the cap be called anything other than what it is: a temporary cap. I am concerned about the wording being used to describe the cap. A company might say that it is a beneficial cap or a protective cap, but there should not be anything to indicate a benefit in the name of the cap.
The amendment is very dictatorial, particularly for a Liberal. It states that the term used should be simply that it is a temporary cap and that, once it has been implemented, all companies should use that phrase in reference to it. There cannot then be any dodging around it. Since writing the amendment, I think it needs to go further and perhaps disallow any words around the name too so that suppliers cannot add adjectives to it. I am not sure how particular we can get on this, but I refer to words such as “beneficial” or “protective” temporary cap. It may seem picky and dictatorial, but my background pre-politics was in marketing and design, and it takes one to know one. Communications are hugely important. There can be no objection to calling it what it is: a temporary cap. In that way, no supplier will be able to use the name of the cap or its description inappropriately.
In the same vein, it should also be obligatory for suppliers to make it clear that the cap does not mean that the price under the cap will necessarily be the best price or the cheapest price. In any communications, suppliers must include clear and accessible information about switching energy suppliers.
Amendment 22 from us and Amendment 23 from Labour concern the provisions in the Bill surrounding the publication of information regarding variations in the cap. Clause 4 states that if the authority is thinking about modifying the price cap, it must notify holders of supply licences, but there is no requirement once a decision is made for companies to inform customers. These amendments put this requirement into the Bill.
Lastly in the group, Amendment 38 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson, who cannot be here today. He wanted Ofgem to have powers to regulate the websites of energy suppliers and energy price comparison site operators. The purpose of that power would be to ensure that consumers are presented with objective information on immediate and future costs and matters of customer service sufficient to make informed decisions about energy supplier choice. I know he wanted a specific requirement for all such sites to list the immediate cost of energy to the consumer, together with, and in the same format, future costs when the initial contract term ends. This would protect consumers from being seduced by a good offer and a good price only to be shortly disappointed to find a huge hike when the first contract ends. He wanted a requirement also that, for each tariff, the terms under which price variations can be applied are clearly shown. However, much of that was out of scope, so Amendment 38 is a lesser version. It requires the authority to modify the supply licence conditions to ensure that the information presented on energy companies’ websites is “sufficiently objective” and to modify the Ofgem Confidence Code so that only price comparison websites that are similarly objective can be accredited by the code.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak, if I may, in favour of Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. At Second Reading, I referred briefly to my attempts to change tariff with my electricity and gas supplier. I think I described it as a parlour game on a computer system that did not always work. It seems to me that what we need to give the public is, first, clarity and, secondly, the capacity to compare one supplier with another.
Let me give two analogies, one good and one bad. The first occurred to me on Saturday when I was standing at a bus stop in central London alongside a hoarding advertising a new credit card deal. At the bottom of the advertisement, in big letters, it said, “Interest rate 57%”. On the face of it, that is quite a high interest rate, but the company has to advertise that interest rate so that it is really clear to the consumer. That is the sort of clarity we need. The bad analogy relates to train fares. Noble Lords who travel a great deal by train may, like me, go on to one of the internet sites that offer you the timetable and the train fares. With train fares there is absolutely no way of making a decent comparison between the different options available. Indeed, it is so complicated that, if you buy your ticket in Llandrindod Wells to go to Paddington, it may be a different price for precisely the same ticket if you buy it in Paddington to go to Llandrindod Wells.
If we are going to do this job now in the Bill, what is required is to ensure that consumers are able to make a proper comparison between the supplier they have and the alternative suppliers available. It does not mean that they will necessarily take the cheapest supplier. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, made a point about green suppliers. Some of us might decide that we are prepared to pay a few pounds extra for the purposes of a better environment, but at the moment we have no way of knowing what sort of value green suppliers present. We have to go on to their website and take their word for it, which is not necessarily good enough. Amendment 23 at least makes a start in achieving those joint aims of clarity and the ability to compare.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for setting off a discussion on this important issue of communication with consumers on electricity prices and the cap. I was going to add to the discussion from my own experience as a householder in Wiltshire. I have had a letter from SSE which is meant to tell me simply how my electricity prices are increasing, what I could do and how I might be able to pay less. I have to say that it is very difficult to understand, so there is a problem outwith the legislation that we are putting through. It is also wrong to suggest that energy companies are always trying to dissemble. How well they do depends on satisfying the consumer and the better ones want to be able to say clearly what is happening.
If we were to add to the system a requirement to communicate about the tariff cap provision, it would make the sort of letter that I have already described yet more complicated. My own experience is that these things can be costly to business. When the minimum wage came in, I remember being telephoned by the business department—I was at Tesco at the time—to ask whether we could put the minimum wage on our payslips. Having talked to our ICT people, I discovered that it would cost us an extra £1 million to put the minimum wage on the payslip. It was therefore agreed that the minimum wage could be communicated in other things. I worry that if we in this Committee put down requirements, it could have a similarly escalating effect on costs.
I have looked at the impact assessment—noble Lords will remember that I am always passionate about the usefulness of impact assessments—but this one does not go into any detail. It just suggests that there are savings to consumers. If we were to add extra provisions on communication, we would need to consider the cost of that because it would then get passed through to the consumer. That cost will apply to the small, new entrants to the industry as well as to the bigger suppliers.
That leads me to one final thought. When we took through the Consumer Rights Bill, in which we were also concerned about communication to consumers, the department worked with the industry to produce special communication. That was then used across the retail industry to inform shops as to the new rights that were coming in for consumers. I wonder whether some of the concerns raised today could not be met by voluntary action within the industry, dedicated to improving clarity for consumers in this important area.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Baroness cited a figure for the cost for communication but in terms of the total cost to the businesses we are talking about, that figure must still be very small. Given the example that I quoted of the banks being required to provide paper statements for anybody who wanted them, surely it is more important that anybody should have access by whatever reasonable means to the information, even at the expense of them paying a little more on communication. The people who will suffer are those who cannot fiddle with their emails, even if they can get the information by email.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I can understand that. Clearly, there may well be a case for requiring some communication to be online and some on paper because some people cannot manage online. However, what I am saying is that this will involve changes in systems across however many energy suppliers there now are—I do not know whether it might be 40, 50 or 60—and there is a cost to that, which we have not looked at or costed. How that fits in with suppliers’ information systems can make a big difference. Clearly, the Bill is going ahead rather rapidly. I have seen no analysis of this angle of things, which is why I support these amendments this afternoon, at least in the form of probing amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, three issues are being raised now. The last two speeches and the introduction were about communication and the points were well made, but we are probably all asking, “What is this all for?” We are missing a dog that has not barked, which, in its most recent form is, saving the presence of my noble friend Lord Whitty, Consumer Focus. Previous regimes have had national consumer councils and other bodies. There was an active and statutorily supported consumer interest that was also part of the process, from which the problems which we are now talking about seem to have emerged. We do not have that; we have a different structure in place and it is, perhaps, too soon to make judgments on it. However, an issue has been raised that should not be allowed to go away simply because the system does not currently encourage it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I have also tried to change my rather complicated fuel arrangements. The house I am in has been brought together from three separate properties and I have three gas and three electricity suppliers. I recognise that this issue exists on the other side of the divide here. It is not simply a doubling: this is an exponential difficulty for those providers who are not able to cope with the issue. That is my problem, but it exemplifies the difficulty of trying to get information.
I have three points of concern. First, it is a problem that there is no statutory body to which you can go that will take this issue on and act on your behalf. Citizens Advice, for all its merits, is not that body and we miss Consumer Focus. Secondly, there is a case—even though there may be costs—for looking very critically at the information flow from the companies at the moment. They may well be trying their best; they may be saddled with statutory responsibilities, but the end product is more pages of more and more complicated, structured things that do not give you the information you require in a way that you can use. For most individuals looking to exercise the market power that consumers should have in this area, this would be a clear statement of the unit cost per kilowatt hour of energy consumed. We do not want a mixture of consumption and fixed costs and to then discover that there are all sorts of fixed costs that are never brought forward, such as network costs, smart meter costs and other things that exist below the line but are never provided in a sensible way. There is a direct issue of communication between the provider and the consumer.
My third point is raised in Amendment 38. The way in which the market has to operate in these rather asymmetric arrangements is for there to be comparison sites and other information providers, which we all tend to go to when we can. There is another problem here, which has not been touched on yet but which we must think about. To what extent are these truly independent? It has been said, by those who have given evidence to us, that many of the comparison sites are only there because they take a commission on the provision of information about the companies by which they are retained. I find it difficult to see how consumers are supposed to work out what is the best deal. This may not be limited to the energy area, but if it exists there then some action needs to be taken, whether by statute or regulation, to make sure that this is a proper aid to consumer choice, not an additional complication.
We were also looking for a way of getting an amendment in this area. I am impressed that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—who cannot be with us—were able to find a form of words. It does not take the trick but it is certainly in the right field. I hope that when the Minister responds he will give the Committee some information about where we might take this issue. It is not dealt with properly in the Bill; it is effectively out of scope in terms of what the Bill currently does. Perhaps, with a little offline discussion, we can bring a bit more focus to it. That would be worth while.
Lord Henley
My Lords, before I respond to the amendments, I will assist my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe by answering one of her questions. We are now up to 70 suppliers. She talked about it possibly having got to the high 40s or 50s, but one should be grateful that the number is higher and rising.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. It would not be right to accept that figure at face value. It may well be 70, but there is a huge discrepancy in size and capacity in that number. We are talking about the big six and then a very large number of small companies with perhaps 1% or 2% of the market. It is not quite as has been said.
Lord Henley
I fully accept that, but the big six is six out of 70 companies. There are another 64, and that number is growing. It might be a small tail but it is good to know that those alternatives are available as suppliers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for moving his amendment and to other noble Lords for speaking to theirs. The general message is that everyone is seeking more information and information of the right sort, which should be—I forget where the noble Lord was quoting from—on a durable medium. He took that to be paper, but it might be extended to vellum, if we remember our debates on other occasions about what Acts of Parliament ought to be printed on.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for her amendment and her frank admission that, for a Liberal, she was being somewhat dictatorial. It is not unusual for Liberals to be somewhat dictatorial; in fact, I find them very prone to banning things and ordering us around, but that is the nature of the beast.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for mentioning his difficulties in trying to get information and change his supplier online. I also know how difficult that can be. One gets online and has problems, then that dreaded expression comes up: “Frequently asked questions”. One can always guarantee that the one question you want to ask will not be one of the frequently asked questions. I was grateful for the analogy he gave of the very good advertisement he saw for a credit card setting out interest rates of some 56%. I take it that he did not bother to take up such an offer. I will ignore what he said about train fares, only to say that I am grateful not to have to respond for the Department for Transport on this occasion. However, as someone who, like him, travels a great deal, I agree that fares can be difficult to follow.
It is very important that we make sure that energy companies not only are as transparent as possible with consumers but provide as much information as is necessary. I am happy to report that Ofgem’s standard licence conditions require—they are dictatorial, you see—suppliers to communicate information about cheaper tariffs to a customer with a “Could you pay less?” label on the first page of bills and statements of account. It is a requirement that the information on cheaper tariffs is included, along with a message saying, “Remember, it might be worth thinking about switching your tariff or supplier”. That required information includes details of the estimated savings that could be achieved by switching to a cheaper tariff.
As I made clear, customers can also continue to specify whether they wish to receive this information electronically or in a hard copy. I noted the percentages given by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on how much people know what is happening in their bank accounts, whether they receive information on paper or online. The simple fact is that a great many people wish to receive this information online. We do not want to prevent that, but Ofgem is imposing a condition that customers must be offered the right choice. Ofgem is also leading a programme of work across industry, including detailed trials of different problems to engage people. Early information from these trials suggests that they can be effective at improving switching rates, however difficult some noble Lords might find that to achieve.
The Government are also working to improve consumer engagement. We provided a little over £1 million in funding for the Big Energy Saving Network and the Big Energy Saving Week last winter. We are also progressing midata in the domestic retail energy market. Midata is the method of electronically transferring customers’ data from a company system to a third party, such as a price comparison website, and should open the door to innovative third-party switching services.
The Government take transparency and ensuring that customers have the information available to switch very seriously, so although I agree with the spirit of these amendments, the processes and policies are in place for consumers to have the appropriate information that they need. It is also worth remembering the warnings that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe gave about trying to insist on too much. Perhaps we should bear in mind the acronym KISS: keep it simple, stupid. There is a limit to the amount of information that should be provided and what is provided should be kept simple. I hope that with that explanation—
Baroness Featherstone
Has the Minister considered my argument about controlling how the cap might be referred to—perhaps as the “temporary cap”? That goes to the heart of the matter.
Lord Henley
I am more than happy to look at that and I hope Ofgem will note what the noble Baroness has said in Committee. It might be that it would want to change the advice it offers to suppliers about what they do. It is important we make sure that the right information is provided in the right format—I think we are all agreed on that—and that, as I said, it is kept simple.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Can the Minister help us to understand why he referred to midata? The midata vision of consumer empowerment, as it was called at the time, has been in existence since November 2011. What will the midata vision provide to help consumers following the enactment of this Bill? What specifics will the consumer be able to use?
Lord Henley
What it will do, as I thought I had made clear, is make it easier to open the door to innovative third-party switching devices, such as the devices I referred to, I think, during the debate on the Smart Meters Bill. These will allow the consumer to find himself automatically shifted from one supplier to another if he says, “I always want the cheapest tariff”, or, “I always want the greenest tariff”. Such things are being developed and midata will help towards that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I now understand why the letter I received is so difficult to understand. It reflects the provisions that the Minister has explained that Ofcom has imposed about having to show how you could pay less even if you cannot in fact pay less, which is the situation in my letter. That leads me to make a small request. It would be great if the Minister were able, between now and Report, to look at how communication is actually decided in the Ofcom area. Is there proper communication with consumers who might be recipients of these letters? We tend to be policy-driven rather than customer-driven, and I heartily endorse what the Minister said about keeping it simple. Talking to consumers about what they are going to be sent might be very helpful.
Lord Henley
I am more than happy to consider that and to write to my noble friend so that we can perhaps consider this again on Report. As I was saying in winding up, we all have the same desire: we want to make sure that the consumer has the right information to make the appropriate decisions that they wish to make. With that in mind, we hope that Ofgem—not Ofcom—will continue to develop its work in that field.
Lord Lennie
Before this comes to an end, would the noble Lord repeat what he said about midata having the ability to steer customers to the cheapest tariff available to them in association with smart meters? When does the noble Lord think this will become available? This is quite revolutionary. It is exactly what is needed, and it was suggested in the Smart Meters Bill, if the noble Lord recalls, that the smart meter could provide that kind of information. Is that how it would be communicated—through a smart meter—or directly to customers?
Lord Henley
Midata is a method of electronically transferring customers’ data from a company system to a third party, such as a price comparison website. I was saying that that could lead to innovative third-party switching devices. I think I might have said at Second Reading of the Smart Meters Bill that some apps were already available that could do that for an individual. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, could sign up to something that said, “Always shift me to whatever is the cheapest tariff”. I cannot remember the name of the one already in existence. The noble Lord might then find that two or three times a year he was changing supplier without knowing it, always going to a cheaper one. It might be that the noble Lord, being very virtuous, wanted a greener one or something else, and other such things could be arranged. I hope that is what midata will help the noble Lord and others to do.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
I hesitate to enter the debate because I do not want to prolong it. My understanding of the current generation of smart meters is that that is their problem: you cannot simply switch to any other provider because they do not yet have the technology to enable you to do that. The next generation will. That is my information and I have not yet heard anything to refute that. I have been talking to energy companies and to people who are heavily involved who say, “I am not signing up to this generation of smart meters”, because they cannot switch you to the complete range of suppliers. They do not yet have that flexibility.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the SMETS 2 meters. I will write to him about SMETS 1 meters and it might be that he is correct about that. I was only mentioning that as an advantage that will be available in the future to customers.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendment. I think I detected a cautious welcome to be followed by, “It’s not really necessary because it’s all in the Bill anyway”. I was slightly concerned about the comments he made in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about the cost of communicating other than by email. It would be good to have some evidence of that cost but I shall reflect, with others, on what he said and we may come back with something different or better on Report. Perhaps if the noble Lord was happy to meet beforehand, that might be useful too. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) the need to ensure that adequate protection exists for vulnerable domestic customers, including ensuring those customers who currently benefit under a cap imposed by the Authority on rates or amounts charged for, or in relation to, the supply of gas or electricity because they appear to the Authority to be vulnerable, retain those benefits.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
There is no plot, my Lords. We are not trying to keep my noble friend Lord Grantchester away from the Dispatch Box but we find it more equitable to share the responsibility, so we are popping up as need demands. I am sure he will return to his commanding position as leader on the Bill very shortly.
It seems odd to have got to the third group of our amendments to find an amendment that, while ostensibly about the various types of cap that are envisaged in play, actually asks a rather deeper question. What is the Government’s intention behind the Bill and what is behind their intention to have Ofgem, as authority, introduce this within a reasonable time after the passing of the Bill? Is it to help vulnerable customers? Is it to help with fuel poverty? Both issues have been raised already in this debate. Or is it more focused on the market and its efficiency and is therefore unrelated to some of the issues we have already touched on, in terms of how people react to the provision of caps?
This issue was raised in the other place in Committee and on Report. What the Government were going to do about this was left open. At the heart of this amendment is a suggestion that the Government need to step up to the plate and tell us where they want to go on this. The discussion that took place in Committee in the other place on 30 April raised the points I shall make, at a superficial level. At the end, the Minister offered some assurances in summing up, but he did not bring forward amendments at later stages. Your Lordships’ House has not yet seen any from the Government.
At heart, there is common ground that it would be a perverse outcome of this price-cap Bill if low-income and vulnerable consumers currently protected by the safeguard tariff had their energy bills increased as a direct result of the introduction of measures in it. We are clearly looking for some certainty about this. Perhaps, when they are designing the wider cap, the Government could highlight that existing provisions require Ofgem to have due regard to low-income and vulnerable customers who are already protected by the safeguard tariff. I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, about this new cap needing a name; otherwise, we shall get into trouble over what we are talking about. There are, of course, other measures in place. There is a warm homes discount, which may be extended. To what extent does that interpose itself in relation to the cap in the Bill? There are measures to protect those who pay cash through prepaid meters in their homes. Where do they stand in relation to it?
To answer my original question, the Government see this more as a market-mechanism Bill than as anything to do with consumers, whether they are vulnerable, disabled, or fall into another category under existing measures. I think that is a mistake. A case was made in our first discussion this afternoon for making sure that we do not see the return of cold homes and the impact that illnesses have on the wider economy if people are not able to fund and maintain a warm and watertight home. However, the problem that needs to be solved for that to happen is not within the Bill but is raised by it. The current market allows for things to happen that are clearly inimical to consumer interests. We see a widespread use of what is called “tease and squeeze”. This is a technical term, which Hansard will want to look up. It is not found in any legal text but describes perfectly what happens to most customers of the big six and less so to those of the other 64 companies that make up the energy supply market, but it is still present. As was raised at Second Reading, it involves, in essence, the availability of extremely discounted initial tariffs to which people can switch, followed by a quick change to a much higher one, which is never really disclosed in any detail and does not appear on many price comparison sites. When you are signed up, you are squeezed. You are teased first with a chance to cut your energy bills quickly by moving to a wonderful new company that has sprung up. Within a year, however, you find that you are on a much higher tariff. If you pay by direct debit, as many people do, you may not notice that until the letter—probably not an email—arrives saying that you have suddenly built up huge arrears and have to pay them a large sum of money. I am not in any sense implying that any illegality or malpractice is going on in the marketplace, but it is certainly not in the consumer’s interest to have this tease and squeeze arrangement operating at will in a situation where the information flows are asymmetric and difficult to read and where the consumers themselves are not able to use effective mechanisms such as price comparison sites to identify exactly what their costs will be, both when they switch and, much more importantly, later.
Many noble Lords may have been approached by companies and others who have an interest in this area. It seems to attract a large number of people who have views on how this issue should go forward. Noble Lords will have been told that one of the major problems affecting it is that when you try to work out the actual costs of the deals that are available, and what they would mean to a consumer who is paying, the information is so opaque and difficult that people end up frustrated and unable to see it. They certainly do not get the most important information, which is the long-run cost that they are entering into.
Arguing back from where I had got to, if the Bill is primarily about improving the market, surely what we should be focusing on, given what I have been describing, is a better series of powers and regulations held by Ofgem to clean it up. We should ban “tease and squeeze” and make sure that consumers are offered clear and unequivocal information about what they are signing up to—now, a year down the line and further down the line, subject always to cost. We have to get behind the idea that this is in some sense a market, but to say that 70 companies compete openly and fairly for the consumer’s interest does not describe effectively what is happening. A group of small companies has been set up which are primarily concerned with issuing bits of paper called bills and getting money out of people. They do not have the sort of competitive marketing operations that we would expect in a fully fledged and operating market; I think the Government accept that. The Bill is only one very small part of what must happen next, which is a clean-up of the whole operation.
We know that this is one part of that. It was probably a politically inspired decision to try to get some locus in this area, which was very much the opposition parties’ game before the last election. Nevertheless, that will work only if some serious effort is put behind the arguments by bringing forward proposals that people will listen to and act on. If, as we have heard, the main measure behind this provision is the smart meters programme, the Government are putting their money on the wrong horse. From all the information we have—we will probably have the advice of the NAO in three or four months’ time—this programme does not seem to be delivering on the aspirations the Government had for it. If that does not work and the information in the home is not available to consumers at the point of consumption, we will not have an effective, intelligence-led approach to how we may look at our bills and try to make sensible decisions about their cost.
That was a bit of a rant to get the Committee into this debate. The issue behind this amendment is whether we should look more carefully at the issues that have arisen from the ideas already in play to protect vulnerable consumers, while ensuring that they are not affected by the introduction of this price-capping Bill and that as a result consumers benefit, the market is cleaned up and the Government get what they deserve in trying to ensure that people have a fair and open market that works well for all concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Featherstone
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 12 continues that theme. It would ensure that wherever there is a vulnerable person, whichever supplier they are with and whatever tariff they are on, the Government would empower Ofgem to deliver the lowest tariff—the tariff for vulnerable people. It would also ensure that that lower tariff is not deleteriously affected by the Bill in any way whatever, and that there can and would be no unintended consequences that result in vulnerable people paying more. The Government need to clarify for the record that the introduction of the price cap does not, and must not, allow for Ofgem to remove or fail to extend the current safeguard tariff for low-income or vulnerable households. It would be helpful if the Minister could lay out how this will not and could not be the case, and demonstrate beyond doubt how the two caps—the one already in place for vulnerable people and the new energy price cap being introduced—can operate at the same time, without causing detriment to anyone eligible for a lower tariff for reasons of low income or vulnerability.
Amendments 27 and 31 relate to Clause 7, which we will debate later. It says that Ofgem,
“must carry out a review into whether conditions are in place for effective competition”—
to include, among other things, consideration of the rollout of smart meters—and must recommend whether the cap should be extended or lifted. Then, after considering the review, the Secretary of State must publish a statement on whether the cap should be lifted or extended. Amendment 27 requires Ofgem to take into account,
“the level of protection in place for disabled domestic customers”,
at that time as part of that review process. Amendment 31 requires the Secretary of State to,
“have regard to the level of protection in place for disabled domestic customers”,
as part of the statement setting out whether the cap should be extended or lifted.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the previous debate. Clearly, there are crossovers between that group of amendments and this one. I declare an interest in that I have been appointed chair of the commission on vulnerability set up by Energy UK. We have not started our work yet so I am not pre-empting that and I am not speaking on behalf of the commission. But it has caused me to look at the complexity of the vulnerability of consumers in this sector and how that is compounded by the difficulty that people experience in getting around to switching, despite the emphasis on switching in public policy, and the attempts—legislatively and by the regulator—to encourage people to find a better tariff.
The fact of the matter is that while we have had a significant increase in the competition at one end, the competition between and within companies to attract and retain vulnerable groups in their own best interests has not ended up being very effective. I am sure we all know of groups in our own community which have had grave difficulty, either by being stuck on a tariff or by attempting to change their tariff, with consequences that were detrimental or at least incomprehensible to them. That remains the position.
When we are talking about vulnerability, we need to recognise that not all of that is obvious. It is not just the elderly, or physically or mentally disabled people, who are vulnerable. It is also people on small incomes, particularly those on irregular incomes, who fail to pay at some point and suddenly become vulnerable because they build up debt and get into the company’s bad books.
The industry is well aware of all this. Indeed, in some ways, it has attempted to address it, but it has not come through. This top-down approach of a cap, which may be necessary at the moment to drive future competition will not help the differential impact on the more vulnerable members of our society. If it does, it will do so inadvertently. That is the not the central theme of this approach. The issue has to be explained to people in a way that does not make life more complicated and that will enable them, at least to a degree, to be more proactive in switching to a lower tariff.
Communication between energy companies and their consumers is therefore vital. The increase in competition through the number of companies in the field has not necessarily led to a dramatic change in this situation. It is important that not just the big six but all companies in the sector take steps to ensure that they take this into account after we have legislated for the cap to address the interests of different groups of vulnerable people. We will return to this issue—amendments have been tabled on it at various points in the Bill—but unless we somehow crack this and make it clear that the cap must address issues of vulnerability at the same time, the social problems that are the outcome of the current dysfunctional and inadequately competitive market will simply continue.
For a number of these groups of people, although I am in favour of smart meters, I do not think that the smart meters rollout will occur in the timescale to match what is in the Bill for a cap. Also, many of those groups will be the last to benefit easily from the information and techniques that smart meters ought to give to consumers. The benefit will be to those who have already made the switch and, quite rightly, stimulated a new market, but they are not necessarily the most vulnerable in the market—in most cases they are quite the opposite. Unless we cater for all aspects of this market, with central objectives improving the position of those various groups of vulnerable consumers, we as legislators, and Ofgem as the regulator, will have failed.
Lord Henley
I thank noble Lords for what they said on these various amendments. I hope to set out what we are doing to protect the more vulnerable and disabled consumers in due course, but I will start by dealing with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about what is referred to as “tease and squeeze”. We believe that the best way to end this practice is the detailed work that Ofgem is undertaking to test better ways to secure customer engagement and make switching quicker and more reliable, as well as many other programmes to make the market work better. Recent changes mean that suppliers can make their default tariff a fixed-rate deal rather than a variable-rate tariff; many have done so.
The amendments would require Ofgem to have specific regard to vulnerable and disabled consumers when setting the level of the cap, but they are unnecessary because Clause 1(6) already places a duty on Ofgem,
“to protect existing and future domestic customers who pay standard variable and default rates”.
That of course includes vulnerable and disabled customers. Further, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, to Clause 7 would require Ofgem and the Secretary of State to consider whether effective competition is in place in the domestic energy supply market as a whole, and again this will include effective competition for all domestic consumers, including vulnerable and disabled customers.
As noble Lords will be aware, in addition to the duty imposed on Ofgem by the Bill to protect all existing and future domestic customers on SVTs and default tariffs, the gas and electricity Acts place a duty on Ofgem to protect the interests of existing and future consumers. In carrying out this duty, Ofgem should have regard to the interests of individuals who are chronically sick, disabled or of pensionable age on low incomes, and those residing in rural areas. With the protections for SVT and default tariff customers in this Bill and the specific duties in existing legislation for vulnerable people, there is no need to place additional duties on Ofgem to protect the interests of those consumers.
Ofgem and the Government are taking a number of steps to support vulnerable consumers. For instance, Ofgem has extended the prepayment meter cap to around 1 million vulnerable consumers in receipt of the warm home discount, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The Government have laid regulations that, among other things, will enable data sharing between government bodies such as the Department for Work and Pensions and energy suppliers for the purpose of fuel poverty, including safeguard tariffs. Clause 3 of this Bill enables Ofgem not to apply the market-wide price cap to customers who benefit from another cap by reason of them being or appearing to be vulnerable.
I believe that these amendments broadly repeat the provision which is already set out in the Bill so they are an unnecessary duplication, but it is worth me going through some of the existing government support for vulnerable consumers. There is the payment of £140 a year to 2 million low-income households through the warm home discount scheme, along with £100 to £300 a year for all pensioner households through winter fuel payments. Some £25 a week is available to low-income and vulnerable households during a cold snap through cold weather payments. There is also the priority services register, which is a free service provided by suppliers for people of pensionable age, those who are sick or have a chronic medical condition, and those in vulnerable situations. That register includes priority support in an emergency by, for example, providing alternative heating and cooking facilities in the event of a supply interruption.
I thank the noble Lord for moving his amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his intervention. I note that the commission he is to chair has been set up by Energy UK and we look forward to seeing its work in due course. However, I believe that the Government are taking appropriate action, including through this Bill, which is all about making the market work properly, to protect consumers from paying too much for their energy. The amendment would therefore be an unnecessary duplication and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank all those who have joined me in this debate, in particular the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Whitty. I am grateful to the Minister for going through the issues and I will read his words in Hansard to make sure they cover the points I have made. However, it might be helpful to him if I lay down a specific list of the issues that we need to resolve, and perhaps a letter from him would make absolutely clear what is being said on these points. He said that the Government have laid the SI that is necessary for data sharing, which I think is the precursor to extending the safeguarded tariff. I had not spotted that myself, but if it is true and it could be confirmed, that would be great. Does that therefore mean that the extensions to the safeguard tariff will be available to coincide with the introduction of the Bill? If it is likely that the cap will be introduced by the end of the year—it is unlikely to be before that —can we be assured that the extensions to the safeguard tariff will also be brought in at that time?
Lord Henley
I am not sure that I can give an absolute assurance on that now but I will certainly make sure it is in the letter that the noble Lord has requested from me.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am not looking for an immediate answer but I am trying to make sure that we are not missing anything out. I think the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment are in different statutes and I cannot see them being affected by this but, again, confirmation that they will not be affected by anything in the Bill would be helpful.
I declare an interest that I am on the priority services register, being of that age. I am looking to see if anyone else is nodding. It was a rather scary moment when someone rang and asked, “Do you want to go on the register, you poor, shivering old person living alone in your house?”—which was certainly not how I felt at the time. But it actually turned out to be quite nice because when there was—inevitably—a power cut within the next couple of weeks, someone rang up and said, “There is a power cut”. I said, “I know that”. They said, “But you are on our register, we have to tell you”. There were various other things I could bore your Lordships with but it was quite amusing.
I have the same question about the warm home discount: will that fit into the way the Bill is being brought in and can we be assured that it will continue and will not be affected?
In summary, I think all the speakers were interested in getting an unambiguous overarching statement from the Minister that the safeguard tariff will not be withdrawn prematurely and will be extended to fit in with the recommendations. If we could get that, I would be very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
“(8) Subject to subsections (9) to (12), sections 11C to 11H of the Electricity Act 1989 and sections 23B to 23G of the Gas Act 1986 apply to modifications of the standard supply licence conditions made under this section.(9) Any appeal against modifications to the standard supply licence conditions made pursuant to this section—(a) may not challenge the decision to impose a price control in principle; but(b) subject to paragraph (a), may relate to—(i) the principles applied in setting the tariff cap conditions in question,(ii) the methods applied or calculations used or data used in setting the tariff cap conditions, or(iii) what the provisions contained in the tariff cap conditions should or should not be (including at what level the tariff cap control should or should not be set).(10) The decision of the Authority to modify the standard supply licence conditions to include tariff cap conditions is to have full effect pending the determination by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) of any appeal.(11) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 5A to the Electricity Act 1989 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4A to the Gas Act 1986 do not apply to modifications of the standard supply licence conditions made under this section.(12) Notwithstanding section 11G(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and section 23F(1) of the Gas Act 1986, the CMA must determine an appeal against modifications of the standard supply licence conditions made under this section within the period of 4 months beginning with the day on which it accepts the appeal.”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I want to raise a very specific point about the possibility of an appeal against the decision to fix the tariff at a particular level. I declare an interest: I have a minute shareholding in Centrica, which I think is a residue of Mr Therm, and of course we are all participants in the market in that we get gas and/or electricity.
The question that the amendment addresses is whether there should be a statutory form of appeal against the level at which the tariff is set by the authority. I think it is agreed that some kind of judicial challenge is available. Judicial review is said to be the challenge. It is interesting to see how the Select Committee approached that. I do not think it was a fundamental or central point of the committee’s consideration. It asked something like 500 questions, of which four were about the appeal provision. The committee’s main interest in appeal was to prevent delay in bringing in the tariff. I can see the very cogent reason for that. We want the tariff to come in as soon as practicable. If it is to be valuable, it certainly must come in in time for the next winter.
I will show that what I am proposing is a good deal better from that point of view than what the committee thought. The committee seemed to have been concerned mainly that there would be no effective legal challenge of the judgment. In a way, I am rather sad about that because it rather suggests that legal challenge does damage to a decision. My belief is that the aim of legal challenge is to improve a decision; if necessary, to make it fairer than it is already. I need not elaborate on that, because both the Government and those noble Lords who support this amendment agree that a judicial challenge of some kind is available.
I will go through our amendment in a little detail, to show what we are trying to do. First, the sections referred to are a code which allows for appeals in the particular situation of modifications of the licence conditions. That is a general code, introduced by the words:
“An appeal lies to the CMA against a decision by the authority to proceed with a modification of a condition of a licence under Section 23”.
Of course, that includes price variation and that is clear from Section 23E, where a price control decision is effectively mentioned. The committee said that judicial review was a reasonable way of challenging a price control. If that is the point of view of the Government—and of preceding Governments, many of whom contributed to this code—it is strange that they have a code for price control at all. This is quite an elaborate code, with provision for rules and all that kind of thing, and with the CMA experts—who know something about this area—dealing with the matter.
The Government appear to be questioning the idea of an appeal on this level, on the ground that it might cause delay. The amendment seeks to deal with all these things. It makes it clear that there is no question of attacking the principle of the cap. That is a political decision to be made by Parliament and, therefore, the appeal decision may not challenge that point. However, it may challenge the principles applied in setting the tariff up. As I pointed out at Second Reading—I shall not repeat myself—it is quite a difficult decision. The conditions the authority has to satisfy in reaching a decision are quite difficult. I can see that there is certainly room for a difference of opinion on exactly what emphasis there should be on these various matters.
The Government made a point about the possibility of delay and that question concerned the Select Committee. The amendment deals with that by proposing new subsection (11), which takes out the power in the existing code to set aside a price control decision until a decision is taken by the CMA. To make it thicker, proposed new subsection (10) says:
“The decision of the Authority to modify the standard supply licence conditions to include tariff cap conditions is to have full effect pending the determination by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) of any appeal”.
There is, therefore, absolutely no question of any delay in this procedural matter. Of course, if it was successful, it might have an effect in respect of settling matters afterwards, but the tariff will come in on the date when the authority decides that it should.
We have thought about the possibility of delay in relation to the decision-making of the authority. The authority has the usual limit of six months. In view of the urgency of this matter, although it is not absolutely vital, we have suggested four months for the authority’s decision. These are perfectly simple matters, I think, and they answer all the Government’s objections to this form of appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has tabled an amendment on costs. Perhaps your Lordships know already that there is a provision about costs in the scheme under the existing Act, and it may be that some modification of that is required. The other point that comes out very forcefully from his amendment is that appeals are made not just by the licence holders. The appeal is there also for the consumer. When you look at the conditions, you see that there is certainly a possibility that the tariff might be too high. I am not saying for a minute that the authority will not do its best to get the right tariff—I am assuming that it will—but appeals are perhaps intended to review that kind of decision. Therefore, it is vital that the consumer representative, which is the citizens advice bureau, Citizens Advice Scotland or a combination of both, has the right of appeal.
I do not think there is any possible answer to this as against judicial review. Apart from anything else, judicial review is not a very technical type of review, in the sense that the judges are extremely skilful and talented but not many have a detailed knowledge of the gas and electricity industry. That is part of the scope of an appeal, as is set down under the statute: that the appellate authority is already equipped with the kind of expertise that is needed to decide this question. The Government kindly wrote me a very full letter saying that, in a judicial review, the judge could appoint assessors. As you can imagine, I am rather aware of that. However, it tends to show exactly what I am saying: that you should have an appeal that is supported by the relevant expertise. The very need for an assessor, which is suggested as a possibility—although I concede that the judge might not require it—goes a certain distance in that direction. That the Government have said it shows that this is an extremely useful and appropriate form of appeal.
We put the four-month period in to make sure that everything is looked at. I do not necessarily say that it is absolutely essential, and it may be that a correct decision is worth more than a hurried one. Still, we are showing our certain desire to have this disposed of as soon as possible. For that reason, in my submission to your Lordships, this amendment is eminently reasonable and one for which the Government so far have produced no reasoned alternative. I beg to move my amendment.
Amendment 6 (to Amendment 5)
“(13) The cost of an appeal initiated by a statutory consumer advocate for energy consumers must be met by the Exchequer.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I can be very brief, because this amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester has already been argued for very persuasively by the proposer of the original amendment and I have nothing to add to that.
The noble and learned Lord makes the point that there are two or three bodies on which there is an expectation that they will look after the consumer interest in matters affecting energy, and one key issue will be the pricing of any cap. An appeal has to be available to them because that decision involves judgment being exercised throughout as many imponderable questions need to be looked at for the authority to arrive at the decision. When we asked about this, Citizens Advice said that it is nervous about the fact that very often these appeals were done with a lack of equality of arms, in that senior counsel are often briefed and brought in by the companies and, therefore, to be able to argue the case persuasively it feels it also has to take counsel. That is expensive, costing perhaps more than it is able to afford. Therefore, the question of cost has arisen. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made the point so I do not need to emphasise that there is an issue here. If the Government could find a way for these costs to be met, it would obviously be better—we would not need to amend anything—but the amendment needs to stay there to make a point. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay; indeed, I put my name to it. I declare two rather different but relevant interests. I spent eight years as a chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, sitting with experts and expert witnesses, analysing the interstices of whichever competition issues were placed before us and being enabled to reach judgments that were carefully considered, although dealt with at extraordinary speed—much more speedily than many High Court cases. For a number of years, I also sat as a deputy High Court judge, dealing mainly with judicial review. In that role, I deferred at once to the much greater experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who was the king of judicial review in his time. Nevertheless, in my years in that role I was able to see the difference between the discipline of judicial review and the competition, evidence-based discipline.
As I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I had a horrible feeling—or perhaps a pleasant one, I am not sure—of déjà vu. Way back in the last century I used to appear as junior counsel in a fair number of cases in the Court of Appeal. I was often led by very distinguished leading counsel, though none more so than the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, three of them aside from me ended up as Members of your Lordships’ House so I look back on those days with pleasure. One of the most terrifying things that used to happen in those days was that if you were appearing as junior counsel in the Court of Appeal, when your distinguished leader had finished, the judge in the chair uttered words that I think were, “Do you follow, Mr Carlile?” They were uttered in a tone that included, “If you dare, don’t you dare and I’ll murder you if you dare”, at least intellectually. So, one followed rarely; I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with great trepidation. I will be very brief because I feel like his junior on this occasion. I will not go through the substantive points that he made, which he did with his usual extraordinary cogency. I agree with every word that he said. These arguments were rehearsed at Second Reading by all of us who spoke—the noble and learned Lord, me, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others. I just want to provide a couple of headlines, as it were.
What kind of appeal do we want to give? Do we want to give one that allows the decision to be corrected if it is plain wrong or do we want to allow an appeal that only allows the decision to be corrected, even if it is wrong, if it is perverse and no reasonable authority would have reached it? For the latter option is the judicial review test. We should aim for what Amendment 5 suggests: that within time limits and the other restrictions described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, the answer can be corrected quite simply if it is incorrect. That is what the public expect and that is what this amendment provides.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in his amendment, and in doing so I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm, DAC Beachcroft LLP. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has pointed out—we enjoyed his journey through history— this amendment will ensure that the Bill meets the Government’s ambition to have a cap in default-rate energy tariffs in place by the winter while also ensuring that the correct scrutiny of such a major intervention in the energy market will be in place; namely, the CMA being able to review and improve the methodology if an appeal is brought.
I want to put forward three core reasons why the Bill in its current form does not provide appropriate scrutiny. First, setting a price cap that maintains competition and innovation will be extremely difficult. Competition is improving and a range of important policy costs such as the smart meter rollout and subsidies for renewable and vulnerable policies are included in energy bills. There are material risks to consumers if the methodology is not correct, and I welcome the amendment proposed to Amendment 5. The CMA clearly possesses the necessary expertise to hear an appeal on the cap, and there is no better source in support of that than the Government themselves. I shall quote from their recent Green Paper, Modernising Consumer Markets:
“We have an independent expert competition body, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), to promote competition in the interests of consumers and business across the economy … The work of the CMA from 2014-2017 is expected to achieve benefits to consumers well in excess of £3 billion”.
I agree with this endorsement and I believe that appeal rights to the CMA will provide a reassurance to consumers and the industry alike.
Secondly, removing the right of appeal to the CMA from the provisions of this Bill would undermine the established approach which has been in place since privatisation. Some noble Lords may remember that as a junior Minister I took through the Gas Bill in 1985 and I still bear the scars, particularly on setting up a system of regulation which at the time was quite innovative. Since privatisation there has been an approach that underpins investor and consumer confidence. Moreover, the CMA already has a track record of improving regulatory decisions. In 2016 it set out that Ofgem’s previous attempts to regulate retail tariffs in its retail market review had damaged competition and should be removed, while in 2015 the CMA heard an appeal, supported by Citizens Advice, on the level of the energy network price control. It found that Ofgem had made an error and £105 million was returned to consumers.
Thirdly, the Government have suggested that the courts, through judicial review, would be better placed to hear an appeal. I do not agree with that. JR is concerned only with the process for making a decision, not the substance. The CMA is a specialist competition body that is designed to look at these issues. It has teams of experts within the organisation and the Government announced in the Budget last year around £3 million-worth of funding to ensure that the CMA could continue to support competition and consumers. This makes the CMA better qualified and resourced than the courts to review a price control. I hope that noble Lords will understand that those are three very clear reasons in support of my noble and learned friend’s amendment.
Perhaps I may anticipate, if I dare, what the Minister may say. Looking at his initial response at Second Reading, I recall his main concern was delay. As my noble and learned friend explained, the amendment explicitly rules out the potential for a CMA appeal to delay or block the introduction of a price control. Delay is not usual anyway. In the past 11 price control decisions the CMA has not caused a delay and the amendment would now make that impossible.
My noble friend also may say we have concerns that a right of appeal could be used by certain of the major players to frustrate a price control. We know, however, that delay will not be possible via the amendment and the energy sector overwhelmingly supports CMA appeal rights, as do investors in the utilities sector. Furthermore, consumer groups would be able to exercise the right of appeal.
Thirdly, in the Official Report at col. 1018, if I recall, the Minister raised the fact that the Select Committee had considered the matter and recommended judicial review as an appropriate route of appeal. I believe there is a capability question here. However, I would also point out that judicial reviews actually take longer to resolve than CMA appeals—9.7 months versus 8.8 months. That is a comparison since the year 2000. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, the amendment would commit the CMA to resolve a case in four months. We rest our case.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I regret I took no part in Second Reading. Indeed, I ought to say at the outset that I defer to no one in my claim to the profoundest possible ignorance about this area of the law and all the technical know-how that underpins it. As my noble friend Lord Carlile says, over the years I have had considerable experience of judicial review. My object is to support and echo rather than add substantively to the arguments already canvassed ably by all of the Lords who have spoken at Second Reading and again today. There are threefold basic advantages, which strike me as perfectly obvious, between the appeal sought in the amendment and judicial review, which, obviously, but for the amendment, would be the fall-back position of anybody wishing to challenge the authority’s decision.
First, there is the question of the expertise of the tribunal in question. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, judicial review judges have no more expertise in this area than I myself have already recognised I lack. In fact, the criteria by which this judgment falls to be made are, as set out in the statute, highly problematic and not obviously soluble by judges as opposed to an expert custom-built tribunal already in place to take appeals.
Secondly, there is the focus of challenge. As has been said, judicial review focuses essentially on the process by which the decision was arrived at. There is not a substantive challenge to the merits. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, only perversity could allow a judicial review challenge on the substantive merits basis. That is not a likely or fruitful way ahead here.
Thirdly—this links with the second point—there is the form of relief. If you succeed on a judicial review challenge in this circumstance, you set aside the decision under challenge but remit the matter back to the body so that it can, without the deficiencies of the process that you have identified, or on a non-perverse basis, reach a different decision. It is not open to the judicial review court to say, “Well, this is plainly a wrong process. They didn’t take account of this, that or the other consideration. So we will impose instead a different cap”. That is not open to it so you simply have a further decision, with, again, all the problems and delays that that would bring in its wake.
Finally, on Amendment 6, I observe only that costs can be a useful sanction and it really should be left to the CMA itself—assuming there is to be a provision for an appeal to the CMA—to decide whether in the particular circumstances it can be empowered to provide, as the amendment would, that the costs should be borne by the Exchequer, but that should not necessarily be the outcome. There may be circumstances which make that inappropriate.
Baroness Featherstone
I have no legal training—which may be painfully obvious to the Committee—nor much experience of the consumer world, but I have listened to the arguments, which have been well made. There is not a point left in my speech that would not be repetitious. I am intrigued to understand what on earth the Minister is going to say in reply. In my view, these arguments are unarguable.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, there is no danger of my repeating what I said at Second Reading because unfortunately I missed the cut and was too late to make a contribution. I do not want to repeat what has been said by the noble and learned Lords. I am trying to think of the collective noun for a group of such distinguished legal experts. I am not sure “a clutch” does them justice—if your Lordships will pardon the pun.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Would the noble Lord accept “a brief”? But that depends on him paying the fees.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
That is a given! I will not go through the arguments again. I concur with them. The case has been made and I hope the Minister is listening. I, too, look forward to his alternative response—or perhaps there has been an epiphany and he will accept the validity of the arguments that have been so ably put.
I want to make a few points that have not been made. It is important to understand the context within which price caps are going to be set. A number of times in the debate reference has been made to the introduction of smart meters. That is not going to happen by chance, it is going to happen because the major suppliers have been told that they have to be introduced. The cost is not insignificant: 50 million smart meters will need to be installed at a cost of something like £7 billion. There is a long way to go: only about 12% of the smart meter installation has been completed.
An independent analysis by an energy sector expert points out:
“An energy price cap that pushes the industry as a whole to break-even or losses has significant implications on the smart meter roll-out programme”,
and that it is,
“absolutely essential to secure the cost-effective deployment of electric vehicles in addition to enabling the reduction of switching times to 24 hours”.
That will be one of the benefits of the smart meter rollout. If we want to encourage electric vehicles—which we do, as we know—smart meters need to be a key part of that.
I was also interested to see that the report talked about the incentives to switch. It said:
“The cap is intended to be set at a level that provides customers incentives to switch. When the CMA surveyed customers to understand the level of savings from switching that would encourage them to switch, it found that the median amount of savings”,
for customers was £120. It went on:
“At savings of £50, only 7% of customers were interested in switching … The survey did not find any meaningful variation in the level of savings required by different demographic groups”.
That is a really interesting bit of analysis, ironically by the Competition and Markets Authority.
I will go on to what we expect from our major energy suppliers, which are vital to the UK economy and the day-to-day lives of British citizens. They account for something like 2.3% of gross domestic product and £100 billion of investment has been earmarked to 2020-21 to ensure that the lights stay on and customers have reliable, affordable and low-carbon energy. There are 600,000 people employed in the sector—even more, if you include indirect jobs—and it is at the forefront of essential new technology, as I have said, such as the smart meter rollout. That will facilitate the rollout of electric vehicles, which will be a £200 billion global market in 2019.
Energy companies are at the forefront of training apprentices. For example, Centrica has six training academies, employs 27,000 people in the UK and has trained 1,000 apprentices a year in recent years, including 2,500 smart apprentices. These are no mean considerations and they do not just happen. I hope there is recognition of this. Energy companies supply households with their gas and electricity, and the market is more open and competitive than it has ever been. Some of this statistical evidence is interesting. We have had an argument about suppliers but the fact is that there are more suppliers than before. I do not disagree with my noble friend about concentration but there has been significant switching. Nearly 400,000 customers switched during January 2018, a 14% increase on the same period last year, while 5.5 million customers—one in six—switched supplier in 2017. Awareness of the ability to switch is high; I have already given the Committee that information. It is interesting that in the BEIS tracker polling, public concern about energy bills does not rank higher than it does about other household bills.
I want to make my position clear. I am not in hock to the energy companies—I will finish in a minute—and I am in favour of a price cap, but it has to be administered in a way that takes cognisance of the role that energy companies play. It also has to be done in an appropriate way. Unfortunately, my quote from the Green Paper was anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, so I will not go through that again but I believe that the evidence to support this amendment is overwhelming and, on those grounds, I support him.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke of his trepidation in following my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. That is as nothing compared to the trepidation that I feel in following my noble and learned friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Haywood, with all his expertise in judicial review, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, at whose feet I sat many years ago at the Department for Employment, with his great legal knowledge, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, himself and all the others who have spoken.
I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for mentioning that my right honourable friend Claire Perry had written to him at some length on this matter to set out the details. I will probably have to set out similar arguments, which I hope he will listen to. However, having listened carefully to the debate and to the concerns raised by all, I think we may have to have further discussions on this in due course.
Just before I come to the substance of the matter, I ought to make a brief point to my noble and learned friend. I believe that his amendment does not quite work. I advise that we would probably need to import all the CMA appeal provisions if we took up his amendments from the gas and electricity Acts and adjusted them so that they applied to Ofgem’s decisions under the Bill. It could add something of the order of 12 new clauses and a schedule to the Bill. Any amendment could also place a new duty on the CMA; I think the noble Lord’s amendment would also require the CMA to consider conducting a review under a compressed timetable. In the light of that, I would certainly want to seek the CMA’s view on those points; obviously, we will let your Lordships know the outcome of that.
I will come to the amendment because it is important that we deal with the arguments, as my right honourable friend did in her letter to my noble and learned friend. This amendment gives us an opportunity to consider the idea a little further than we did at Second Reading. As I mentioned—I will mention it again during the course of the Committee—the Bill is a temporary and targeted measure to protect consumers from excessive energy prices until the conditions for effective competition are in place. It is important not to lose sight of this fact, nor of the 1.4 billion consumer detriment figure that was established by the CMA in its 2016 investigation into the energy market when considering the route of challenge for suppliers.
For temporary and targeted interventions such as this price cap, the CMA, as an appellate body, is not a “well-established right”, as has been suggested by some stakeholders. In fact, CMA appeals usually exist only for permanent, if periodically updated, price control regimes. The Bill does not replicate an existing price control regime, setting allowed revenues for entire businesses. It is, as I said, a targeted and temporary intervention to deal with a specific problem in part of the market. In fact, we are unaware of any temporary price-related interventions that have included the right to appeal to the CMA. There are also other examples of price interventions by regulators that do not include a CMA appeal right, such as the payday loan interest rate cap introduced by the Financial Conduct Authority in 2015.
Some stakeholders have sought to emphasise the differences between the FCA’s measure and the one we are considering here today. I suggest that these measures are not so different at all. Both measures are direct, targeted interventions operating in the retail end of their respective sectors; both originate from the sovereign will of Parliament via primary legislation; and both have the same express intent to protect consumers from exploitation. Like Ofgem, the FCA also has discretion in the setting of the cap and, as Ofgem has started to do, it carried out its own consultation weighing a list of concerns it should have regard to in a similar vein to the conditions set out in Clause 1(6).
Obviously, decisions relating to the prepayment meter cap are subject to challenge by way of judicial review. Therefore, there is precedent for a direct, price-related measure stemming from the will of Parliament to protect consumers that does not have a CMA appeal right. What is wrong, dare I ask, with judicial review? It provides a sufficient means of challenge to ensure the provision of a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial body established by law.
Again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and others have made the point that judicial review is focused on process. A judicial review will consider the lawfulness of a decision, but there is also scope for the court to consider issues around the proportionality of any decision. They rule on many highly complex cases each year, so I am afraid I do not agree with the argument that in this area alone the issues are so complex that the courts simply would not be able to cope. The price cap is for Ofgem to determine in accordance with its duties and the court would not need any particular expertise to review that. As was made clear by my right honourable friend in her letter, if it did need particular expertise, which would be rare, it could still sit with assessors.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
The Minister said that the route of an appeal to the CMA could be abused by the major suppliers. What would prevent them seeking a judicial review at that point? What is the difference?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I made clear, they would be using the CMA to delay this process, and we do not think that that would be right. I do not think that that would be the case with judicial review, but, as I said, I am more than happy to discuss these matters later. We have set out our position here and in the letter that my right honourable friend sent to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry to interrupt but the procedure is for me to respond first. I thank the Minister for his response, although I think the arguments were won fairly and squarely by those who proposed the original amendment. I hope that there was support around the table for the additionality of the consumer statutory representatives. The point is made that they are funded to be consumer statutory representatives—that is true. It is not true that they are funded adequately to carry out all the functions that could apply if this additional responsibility were placed on them. It would be a perverse outcome for the Government to rely on existing funding and not supplement it if a large number of people suffered badly as a result of a benefit that was supposed to come to them but which was not done properly and needed to be appealed, and the appellant was not able to fund their appeal.
I think we will have further discussions on this issue. I make it clear that we are minded to support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. As such, we would like to be part of that discussion and debate when it comes. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw our amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I find it difficult to know exactly what the basis is on which the Government now stand in relation to this. I would be extremely happy to have further discussion involving as many of us here as would wish to take part. I am sure that the Government would welcome that.
The situation is that an appeal under these provisions requires the permission of the CMA. The idea that some tariff licence holders would try to exploit this in some way is well met by the procedures that are laid down in this scheme. My noble friend began with the rather frightening suggestion that I needed to add something like 12 clauses to the Bill. It may be wrong, but subsection (8) of our proposed new clause states that:
“Subject to subsections (9) to (12), sections 11C to 11H of the Electricity Act 1989 and sections 23B to 23G of the Gas Act 1986”—
my noble friend’s production, with modifications, of course—
“apply to modifications of the standard supply licence conditions made under this section”.
That seems to put all the conditions in the tariff arrangement into the Bill for the purposes of dealing with the tariff. I cannot understand what more is required. I am in favour not of prolixity but rather of trying to be brief. That seems to me to do it briefly.
The whole procedure is involved. The only thing we are doing is modifying the procedure to take account of the concerns that the Government have expressed about delay and the power that the CMA has to postpone the coming into effect of the tariff under appeal. That is what we have tried to deal with, to resolve the issues that seemed to concern the Government in the letter that the Minister kindly sent me a little time ago.
I am extremely happy, as I said, to be involved in any discussions about this. At the moment, I find it very hard to see why the Government should want to have judicial review more than this, because some people think that exploitation can happen under judicial review. I remember some time ago reading out a passage from a colleague’s book about this and his experience of judicial review in relation to his education policy. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but I am saying that this procedure we are proposing is as protected against any kind of exploitation as it could be, because the permission of the authority is required and it will be very astute to know if it is just exploitation for the sake of some big member of the licence holders group. So I do not honestly think that that is a very serious objection.
As I said at the outset, I do not think the Select Committee was really concerned about anything except the delay that it thought would be involved in any kind of procedure. It would apply to judicial review—indeed, probably more than any other—because I doubt it would be right to try to remove the power of the judge to suspend the thing if he thought that that was required, whereas we expressly remove the statutory power of the CMA to put that in.
I think we have answered, as best we can, every possible concern that the Government have, so I would be glad to explore this—I was just about to say “exploit this”—at a meeting between now and Report. I am very keen that we should get ahead with this. We do not want to delay the passage of the Bill through this House, not at all—the sooner it gets through, the better, and the sooner the cap is in place the better, if it is going to be worth while.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, in moving Amendment 8, I shall speak also to Amendments 10 and 11.
Clause 2 on tariff cap conditions lays out a number of criteria or necessary provisions the cap conditions need to satisfy. For example, Clause 2(1)(b) specifies that the conditions,
“must set out how the cap is to be calculated”,
and Clause 2(1)(c) specifies that they,
“may make provision specifying how a standard variable or default rate is to be identified”.
While we recognise that tariff cap conditions confer functions on Ofgem to undertake, nevertheless the amendment probes whether Ofgem could be given too wide a power under this clause to undertake further activity. Are there any functions the Minister may be able to foresee that may be necessary and could be enabled by this catch-all provision? If there are further functions that Ofgem may wish to initiate, can he confirm that these would need to follow the procedures already set out in the Bill?
Amendments 10 and 11 are also probing amendments. While we recognise that there must be a level playing field in the electricity market, there are some companies, certainly recognised green supply companies, that only provide alternative energy and often have only one tariff. The Bill is targeted at the SVT or default tariffs of the majority of companies, such as the big six, that have an array of tariffs from which a wide variety of prices can result. Clause 3 specifically relates to exemptions from the cap and the amendment allows green companies, rather than their tariffs, to be exempt. It could be interpreted that green suppliers may be unintentionally penalised, as they could incur additional material costs, such as contracting generators, policy work and research and development, that cannot be directly attributable to a single tariff. Has any consideration been given to a company-level exemption to ensure the survival and continuation of additional green energy projects and investments? Could tariff conditions make different conditions for these suppliers and exempt a supply from the cap’s application? I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that his Amendments 8, 10 and 11 are probing amendments. I hope I can answer the points he raised.
Clause 2(1)(e) is a technical provision which allows Ofgem to give itself the power to do things through the licence conditions for the tariff cap. Amendment 8 would remove that ability for Ofgem to confer functions on itself when putting in place tariff cap conditions. The provision could be used, for example, to give Ofgem a discretion to decide what information to request from suppliers to inform its decisions on the design of the price cap. The subsection is designed to provide Ofgem with the requisite flexibility for the specific purpose of designing and implementing the price cap. It is not a green light for the regulator to self-design new functions in unrelated areas. As such, I believe it is a sensible and necessary provision that will cease to have effect when the price cap ceases to apply in 2020, or later if it is so extended.
Amendments 10 and 11 appear to be designed to enable Ofgem to exempt particular suppliers from the price cap or set the cap differently for different suppliers. The Government’s aim is that the price cap will apply across the whole of the market. Its impact will depend on the level of each supplier’s standard variable or default tariff and how many customers are on such tariffs. The Government’s aim is to protect consumers from high prices until the conditions for effective competition are in place. Clause 3 enables certain tariffs to be exempt from the price cap, such as green tariffs or tariffs for vulnerable customers who benefit from a different cap, as I mentioned earlier. I do not understand why it would be necessary or helpful for particular suppliers to be treated differently, and I fear that such a situation might create the risk of the cap being gamed.
I hope those explanations are helpful and useful for the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his explanation of these essentially technical clauses. I recognise that we must be careful that companies do not game the market. Nevertheless, we were probing the relationship with the exemptions in Clause 3 and whether there was some way in which we could be helpful to the alternative energy market for the necessary changes that need to be brought about for power supplies, which have meant that these have had to be grant-aided when brought in to be able to be competitive in the marketplace. I understand the thoughts behind the Minister’s reply. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Featherstone
“( ) Tariff cap conditions do not apply in relation to any supply of electricity by a holder of a supply licence who, in relation to the supply, has complied with—(a) Condition 21D.4(a) of the standard electricity supply licence conditions (obligation to ensure that claimed environmental benefits are a result of customers choosing to purchase the tariff), or(b) an obligation that is a replacement for the obligation imposed by Condition 21D.4(a).”
Baroness Featherstone
My Lords, one of the concerns that I raised at Second Reading is that there is no requirement for the authority to exempt from the cap those who wish to pursue a more environmental tariff. Under Clause 3(2) the authority may exempt such customers but there is no obligation to do so. There was such an obligation in the draft Bill, and with Amendment 13 we would reinsert the wording that was used then into this version of the Bill. The BEIS Select Committee was worried that the wording was too ambiguous and would allow companies with tariffs that were not environmental to use it as a loophole to escape the cap. We have tabled this probing amendment to ask the Government why more has not been done to get this into the Bill. Clause 3 enables Ofgem to exempt green tariffs from a cap if a customer makes the choice to move to a tariff that provides energy from renewable sources only—but with no clear timetable for introducing those exemptions.
Earlier this year, the Government stated that they would seek an exemption for green energy tariffs from the price cap. They said that if the power was from a renewable source only, it would be exempt from the cap, but Ofgem is not required to consult on this before the cap is implemented. If this is not amended, there will be a chilling effect on what is still a nascent but vital industry. Taking the Government at their word, encouraging consumers to stay green or to go green should be built into the introduction of the cap from day one.
In March this year, Ofgem published an update on its plans for the price cap. At that point, it said that it was planning to issue a series of working papers on a whole range of aspects of the cap ahead of a policy consultation. One such paper was to be called “Our views on an exemption for tariffs which may support the production of renewable gas and electricity”. It issued a series of working papers, none of which related to that exemption. If we cannot get this in the Bill, the cap when instituted will not include that green exemption. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about how the Government might amend the Bill to ensure that consumers who choose to buy clean energy are not disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. The amendments in this group are variations on the same theme, which is the question of how one can find in the Bill the right balance between the wish to encourage the drive towards reduced carbon and no-carbon generation of power as far as possible and, at the same time, trying to get out of what appears to be a cul-de-sac in which the more we propose exemptions from the tariff for those who exercise clear preferences for green supply and carbon-free generation, the more they will not feel the benefit from measures that are meant to reduce the cost of the electricity and power that they consume. I do not know what the right balance for that is, so this is a probing amendment.
Our solution—we are not wedded to it but I would be interested to hear the Government’s observations on it—is that a situation where a consumer has clearly and unambiguously signified their intention to always select energy provided from wind or other renewable sources might provide a break point in which one could exercise discretion on whether they obtained the benefit of the cap. That seems to play to my earlier concern that this would prioritise people who used carbon-based energy sources as the only ones to benefit from the cap and would therefore reduce their costs.
I am not entirely clear which way we should go on this. It seems unreasonable to take an extreme position one way or the other, but that seems the only way to find an equitable solution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I will address the proposed amendments to Clause 3 from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, regarding arrangements for exemptions from the price cap.
On Amendments 13 and 14, the Government are clear that it is right for Ofgem, as the expert regulator, to look at an exemption from the cap for green standard variable tariffs, remembering that fixed-term green tariffs are not covered by the cap. The Bill requires Ofgem to consult on an exemption and, if it decides to put an exemption in place, it must be for tariffs that are chosen by consumers and which support the production of gas and the generation of electricity from renewable sources.
The Government do not wish to prejudge the outcome of Ofgem’s consultation. We are very much aware of the arguments around having an exemption but are also aware that, as with any exemption, there may be a risk of gaming—or greenwashing, as it is sometimes known. This is a complex area and we should not make any judgments or decisions until Ofgem has undertaken its consultation and examined the approaches to an exemption.
The Government note that many fixed-term green tariffs that support renewable energy generation are already available on the market. These offer consumers considerable savings compared with non-green SVT tariffs. Some new entrants to the market also expect to deliver green standard variable tariffs at levels below where they expect Ofgem to set the price cap. Fixed-term green tariffs would still be available in the event that the regulator chooses not to exempt green SVTs from the price cap. In view of this explanation, I feel that Amendments 13 and 14 are unnecessary.
Amendment 15 concerns vulnerable consumers. As has been noted in relation to earlier amendments, Ofgem will keep the safeguard tariff in place for warm home discount recipients if it offers a higher level of protection than the market-wide price cap under the Bill.
Amendments 16 and 17 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Amendment 16 creates a situation whereby, if Ofgem decides that actively chosen green tariffs that support the production of renewable energy should be exempt, all consumers on such tariffs would need to opt in to this exemption; otherwise, the cap would still apply. There may be unintended consequences from this approach. If Ofgem does decide to exempt green tariffs and yet only a small proportion of consumers opt in to the exemption—for whatever reason—these suppliers could find that their tariffs become financially unsustainable. Such a situation could counteract the aim of encouraging and maintaining investment in renewable energy, while also limiting the choice of green tariffs available to consumers. The Government are therefore not convinced that an opt-in clause would be helpful.
On Amendment 17, I remind noble Lords that Ofgem published its policy consultation on 25 May and it remains open for submissions. The consultation contains a section on the green tariff exemption. Ofgem is engaging widely on the consultation, including through workshops with suppliers and consumer groups. As such, the amendment comes somewhat after the fact, and so I believe it is not necessary.
Finally, Amendments 18 and 19 are also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I agree with the thrust of Amendment 18. As I have said, Ofgem’s policy consultation is already under way. In Appendix 13 of the consultation, Ofgem sets out the proposed criteria by which it may consider green tariffs to be exempt. One is that the green tariffs,
“provide support for renewables, materially beyond support provided through subsidies, obligations or other mandatory mechanisms”.
On Amendment 19, the Bill requires Ofgem to complete the consultation so that the licence modifications giving effect to the price cap include the exemption. Of course, this is subject to Ofgem deciding to put the exemption in place following the consultation. As setting a price cap and determining a robust exemption—subject to the outcome of the consultation—clearly involve a lot of work, the Bill provides a little flexibility in the event that this is not possible. Nevertheless, it still requires Ofgem to put in place any exemption as soon as practicable following the modifications putting in place the cap taking effect. Consequently, the Government do not see the need to include Amendments 18 and 19 in the Bill, and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to not move them.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry to interrupt: perhaps I might check two things with the Minister. I think we agree that there is an issue here that is very difficult to bottom out and therefore the consultation process is obviously helpful in that. What I was trying to get across, although perhaps I failed—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made the same point—is that given that we are in a consultation process, where does this all lie in relation to the Bill? Are the Government really saying that actually this is too difficult to deal with in the Bill and it is being passed to Ofcom to make whatever decision it can make in the light of the consultation?
I am not saying that that is wrong. I just ask the Minister to accept my earlier argument that this was actually rather a difficult principle and perhaps should be in primary legislation; otherwise, there is a question of gaming and other things. The point of principle was whether we should give priority to the encouragement that would flow to smaller, greener energy producers, which would not have their income reduced because they were carved out of the new tariff, at the expense of green-minded ordinary citizens who want to get their supply from green sources but are poor, vulnerable, disabled or fall into the category of needing support but find themselves removed from that support system because they are prioritising green energy. That does not seem fair. I wonder whether we should think very carefully about whether it is right to simply pass this to Ofgem to do on the basis of the consultation or whether we should take a decision within the Bill itself.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. I would like to come back to the second question in due course because I did not quite follow the tension he identified between different types of consumers and whether they would be caught by the exemption and so on. I think there is an opportunity for us to meet again after this to discuss the green tariff exemption specifically.
On the first issue, the consultation, it is the Government’s intention to put an exemption in place for appropriate green tariffs, but the issue, as was brought out in previous discussions on the Bill, is that sometimes what is green is not green and the whole area can actually be very grey. We must not get ourselves into a situation where the real green tariffs are losing out. I am happy to have conversations in future.
Baroness Featherstone
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It is very complex. There is still the kernel of an issue here, so I will read Hansard and consider what the Minister said. At the moment, I am uneasy that we have not bottomed out the issue that needs to be defined in the Bill to give the Government and the opposition parties surety that we have not, by accident or by design, done something to ace out what we are trying to value in all this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Featherstone
“Review of the context surrounding the introduction of the tariff cap conditions
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the context surrounding the introduction of the tariff cap conditions.(2) The review must make reference to—(a) the circumstances that necessitated a cap on energy prices being introduced;(b) whether or not the circumstances referenced in paragraph (a) could have been prevented by earlier intervention; and(c) what steps the Government can take to prevent a cap being necessary in the future.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act.”
Baroness Featherstone
This amendment is about context and the prevention of any repetition of a need for a cap. It is again a probing amendment to get the Government to talk about advancing their thinking on how not to allow a broken energy market to arise again. A cap should never be necessary. It is not a good answer but an answer. Everyone agrees that competition and a properly working market should be the effective way to do this. This amendment suggests that a review needs to be carried out to understand the circumstances that necessitated the introduction of the cap. Could the circumstances that heralded that necessity have been avoided had action been taken earlier? Were there warning signs? I would say that there were. With more consumers switching and more competition, I hope we will not be in that situation again, but the big six still have around 80% of the market. Was that a contributing factor? Of course it was. How is it that prices became so high? What measures might be introduced at an earlier and more expedient point to prevent a recurrence? What are the Government going to do to monitor what companies say to customers?
I raised another issue at Second Reading. Recently, some of the large energy suppliers raised their prices. I questioned the rise and the answer I got was that wholesale energy costs were rising and therefore prices had to rise. Shortly after that, E.ON’s profits rose by 41%, which was so far beyond any rise in the cost of wholesale energy that it made one wonder whether there really was cause and effect and whether rising energy costs were the sole arbiter of the rise in price. That is something the Government need to look into. If we do not examine, review and contextualise what brought us to having to introduce a cap to protect people on standard variable and default tariffs, how can we be sure it will not happen again? I look forward to the Minister’s answer about what the Government will put in place to ensure that that never happens again.
Lord Grantchester
I shall speak to Amendments 21 and 24, which are in my name. Under Clause 4, Ofgem must undertake various actions by way of notice of proposed modifications, including giving notice that it proposes to make modifications. Amendment 21 specifies that Ofgem must provide reasons in a narrative that explains why it is making modifications—ideally, an assessment of why modifications are being proposed.
We all recognise that energy bills soared 20% between 2007 and 2013 and that the average household pays around £300 more today than it might otherwise do in a more competitive market. However, in the interests of transparency it is imperative that Ofgem outlines its reasons for setting the price cap at any given level for the benefit of suppliers and customers alike. That would help set parameters when undertaking later reviews and assist greater scrutiny.
Amendment 24 has been proposed following the debate last week in your Lordships’ House on the European Union Committee’s report Brexit: energy security. In its report the committee portrayed how the UK and the EU are already increasingly interconnected on energy. Already, high levels of gas are being piped from Norway and over 5% of electricity demand is being met from the EU, with estimates that this source of electricity supply is likely to increase to over 25%. At present the UK is a member of the internal energy market and the committee’s report underlines the risk should the UK not remain within the IEM. From evidence received, it is universally argued that the UK could be more vulnerable to supply shortages or challenges, making supply less efficient, with the result that retail prices to consumers could rise. Amendment 24 specifies that the consequences of Brexit must become part of the review of the market and the application of the cap.
In the Government’s response to the Select Committee, they failed to address this point while being pressed to undertake an assessment of the consequences of the UK leaving the IEM. How do the Government propose that Ofgem should assess the situation in its review? The effect should be recognised for the application of the cap and, hence, included in the Bill.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 20, 21 and 24, which relate to the reasons for this cap and the details of its implementation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, proposes a review of the energy market, in particular setting out the reasons for the cap, whether it could have been avoided and how a price cap can be avoided in the future. The Bill follows on from an extensive two-year investigation undertaken by the Competition and Markets Authority. This reported that there was, in effect, a two-tier market, with good value tariffs for those who engage in switching suppliers but for those who do not, the market was uncompetitive and these consumers were being charged an unjustifiably high price for their basic energy needs.
The CMA also found that the significant market share of the largest energy companies and the use of the standard variable tariffs had led to a situation where customers, including some of the most vulnerable in society, are simply paying too much, They are also paying for the inefficiencies of the larger companies to the tune of around £1.4 billion a year. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, mentioned E.ON and its 41%. I was not quite sure what she was referring to and whether that was a return on capital. A profit increase of 41% would depend on its starting and end points; it is not hugely relevant, depending on the leverage of the company. Potentially, we should look at its return on capital, which is far more instructive.
It was as a result of this very detailed, two-year report that the Government and Ofgem undertook to protect those on the poorest-value tariffs on a temporary basis until the conditions for effective competition are established. In addition, Ofgem is actively considering the future of the energy retail market. This work is looking at barriers to innovation and whether the current market model needs to be reformed. Another review at this stage would simply tell us what we already know and take resources away from the vital work being carried out to support the necessary reforms of the market.
On Amendment 21 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I am sure he is aware that, as part of the licence modification process, Ofgem will be required to state that it proposes to make the modifications and their effect. Subject to the will of Parliament, it is clear that this action is going to take place; indeed, suppliers and other interested parties are actively involved in the consultation being conducted by Ofgem. The amendment is therefore not necessary.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 24 relates to those matters which Ofgem should consider during its review of the level of the cap, which must take place at least once every six months. It is incredibly important that Ofgem, as the industry regulator, be allowed to consider what it feels matters the most. He may be pleased to learn that Ofgem has published a consultation paper which sets out the matters it proposes to review when considering the level of the cap. That will of course include wholesale prices and many of the factors raised in the debate of last week, which he mentioned. Hence, the amendment is unnecessary at this stage.
I hope that the noble Baroness and noble Lord are content with my explanations and will be willing to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Featherstone
I thank the Minister for her response. I understand that the Bill puts in place an examination of the conditions for effective competition, as an answer for not having a cap, but I am trying to go a little deeper. I want to avert the idea that a cap can become a mechanism whenever the market is dysfunctional. It is not the answer and we therefore have to go deeper. On the basis that I will consider what the Minister has said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lennie
“( ) The Secretary of State must within six months of the passing of this Act publish a statement outlining the criteria that are to be used by the Authority in the review to assess whether conditions are in place for effective competition for domestic supply contracts.”
Lord Lennie
My Lords, the history of the electricity market has not been an unbridled success. That is why we are here. We want to ensure with these amendments that Ofgem has the right steer and takes account of the right criteria in determining whether market conditions truly apply. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, that we do not want there to be a permanent cap on tariffs, but the tariff is likely to last longer than is currently scheduled.
I recently had some experience of Ofgem. It contacted me after Second Reading to say that it disagreed with me, which was not surprising, and asked whether I would like to meet and talk about it. I said yes and left a message to say where I was, but I have heard nothing since. If your Lordships have any influence on Ofgem, please use it, because I am still available for discussion should it wish to have it.
What comparable or appropriate market conditions should be in place? We met some of the smaller supply companies. They talked about supermarkets being almost perfect markets: you have choice ranging from price reducers to quality suppliers with everything in between, with the consumer able to shop around and choose where he or she wants to spend whatever amount of money on whatever product. That is true to a degree, except that the likelihood is that you will go to your local producer or supplier.
The comparison to the market for electricity is remote. The market conditions for electricity are that you have monopoly suppliers who supply your energy at a cost that they determine. They supply it at a price to attract the customer—we have heard this before—and then bump up the price once they have you and hope that you do not notice, because you are online, you pay by direct debit and you do not receive communications about that. And so it goes on.
Lord Henley
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, is having problems getting to meet Ofgem, but I am sure that it is an assiduous reader of our debates and will have noted what he said. In case it is not, I will pass on his message to Ofgem to say that he would be grateful to have that meeting—obviously, I want to be as helpful as possible.
That may assist our discussion on Amendments 25, 26 and 28, which would amend Clause 7 to include matters that Ofgem must have regard to when carrying out its review of the conditions for effective competition. As the noble Lord is aware, the Bill purposely does not define what the conditions for effective competition should be, although, as a major government programme, it requires Ofgem to consider the progress that has been made in rolling out smart meters.
It is right that Ofgem considers the market as it evolves over the next few years. Setting out now in the Bill the factors that it must consider would not be helpful. The BEIS Select Committee agreed with that approach in its report, which states:
“We believe that setting a definition of ‘the conditions for effective competition’ before setting the cap could create incentives for suppliers to game the system or treat the cap as a box-checking exercise rather than going above and beyond their obligations. It would also risk creating unnecessary opportunities for legal challenges”.
The factors set out in the noble Lord’s amendment appear to be broadly sensible. But this is a job that is best left to the regulator and is something that has to be considered in the light of the market as it is at the point that it is being reviewed, not now. Obviously we will have to consider that on different occasions if we have to extend the Bill. I do not see how binding Ofgem to a set of factors would be helpful.
As I made clear earlier and as my noble friend has made clear, Ofgem recently published a paper on the setting of the cap, which is out for consultation at the moment. It includes a consideration of the factors that indicate that the conditions for effective competition are in place and the extensive programme of work aimed at making it easier for customers to engage in the market and encourage them to switch suppliers. Ofgem also set out in its annual report on the state of the energy market an assessment of issues such as barriers to market entry or exit, the level of competition between firms, and the range and quality of service offerings. In its work on future supply market arrangements, it is assessing whether more fundamental changes to the structure of the retail energy market may be needed to allow disengaged consumers to get a good deal. Ofgem has said that it will need to assess which, if any, of these it considers to be crucial to lifting the cap.
Ofgem has said in its consultation paper that it expects to keep these factors under review as the market develops and that it will report on progress in creating the conditions for effective competition, alongside its annual reports on the energy market. It has also said that in order to recommend that the cap should not be extended for another year, it would expect to see sustained progress that would allow it to be confident that currently disengaged consumers could gain a reasonable deal from the energy market without price protection.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that his amendment is possibly overly prescriptive. Ofgem will consider what is relevant and necessary at the time. I hope, therefore, he will be able to withdraw his amendment. I repeat what I said earlier: I hope he manages to have his meeting with Ofgem and, if he has any problems, he should get in touch with my office.
Lord Lennie
I am grateful to the Minister for his offer of support for my meeting with Ofgem. I am sure it will happen soon—I am sure Ofgem has ears and eyes and can read, so I expect a call fairly soon. I am also grateful that he welcomed the suggestions we have laid out in the amendment and finds them useful as a steer that Ofgem may choose to use. I am not sure that they are the be all and end all, but it is a range of suggestions. I will certainly read the consultation paper Ofgem has put out and respond to it. In the meantime, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29 I will speak to linked Amendments 30 and 34. I should perhaps express my regret that I arrived too late to speak at Second Reading as a consequence of other commitments.
The purpose of these amendments is to make it more difficult to extend the duration of a price cap and to ensure that it is temporary, if I may pick up the useful word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her amendment to Clause 2. As the helpful notes on the Bill say in paragraph 15:
“The cap applies until the end of 2020 but it may be extended, for a year on up to three occasions, if the conditions for effective competition in the market for supply contracts are not in place”.
The basic point is that I am unconvinced of the merits of price caps. Setting prices at a low level may seem superficially attractive but experience in many jurisdictions shows the problems that they create. For example, in California in 2001 retail prices were capped at levels that ended up being below the wholesale cost of energy. As a result, retailers found themselves $20 billion in debt and one of them went bankrupt. The state then had to step in. Price caps are against most economic theory and have unintended consequences, as we have discussed, so there is no need for me to labour the point.
If I may, though, I will share one personal experience of price regulation somewhat akin to what we are now discussing. As a junior civil servant, I was responsible for the milk costing system, administered with the help of a leading accountancy firm. In effect, we were responsible for setting the permitted retail price of milk. Unfortunately, a member of the departmental team unwisely agreed that a visit to an international dairy conference in Miami was a legitimate expense. As a result, everyone paid more for their milk. This was an early lesson in why it is better to avoid government interference in pricing.
Still, we are where we are and we need to improve the Bill. I believe it would be much better if the cap ended in 2020 and that, as drafted, it is far too easy for the Government to extend it. Indeed, there seems to be almost no prospect of ending it before 2023. Yet the Minister, Claire Perry, said in Committee in the Commons that there was,
“strong consensus in the Committee”,
that the cap should be temporary and that a proposal under discussion to extend it further,
“creates disincentives and uncertainty in a market where we have to have certainty to generate investment”.—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill Committee, 15/3/18; cols. 86-88.]
I would add that price caps where the case for a cap is strongest—for those 4 million households with prepayment meters, and for a million vulnerable consumers—have already been introduced by Ofgem. I ask the Minister to update us on the impact of those before the Bill leaves Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made some powerful points about those very consumers and the complications of dealing with them. I hope his commission will come up with some simple innovative ideas that we can all support.
I heartily dislike needless regulation. I would like the Government to come back to Parliament and seek primary legislation if they want to extend these temporary controls beyond 2020. Clause 8 makes it far too easy to extend them, and my amendments would return this power to Parliament. I know from my wide experience of government as a civil servant, from working in business and as a Business Minister that getting rid of regulation is always a low priority in the modern world. This hurts competitiveness and is bad for our economy. I very much welcome the use of a sunset clause but it should be just that. As for the detail of what is proposed, my Amendments 29, 30 and 34 would remove the possibility of extending the cap by deleting most of Clause 8 and making related amendments to the review procedure in Clause 7.
I have to accept that there is a political dimension to the proposed price cap, and I know the Minister will have to support the Bill in the round. However, I would ask him to go away and think about whether we should really extend the cap beyond 2020 without primary legislation—that is, another Bill—and the process of review that always precedes such legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this is a somewhat complicated group of amendments because within it are points of view that are mutually contradictory and indeed on which we hold contradictory positions. So we are not going to agree on this, and I look forward to hearing the Minister trying to weave a way through that does not upset one side or the other too much. He does not normally care too much about whether he does that, but that is for another time.
Our amendments are probably based on the assumption that the rather high aspirations that you can read into the Bill in terms of how it might reform and change the basic market for electricity and gas supply will be achieved, and takes the sanguine view that they are not going to be achieved in time for the cap to be reduced at the appropriate time. If that is the case, it also has the benefit of making sure that vulnerable consumers are not caught by the other schemes referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which we discussed earlier. They would continue to operate and we would take that to be a good thing, but as we have discovered, that is of course not the primary purpose of this Bill.
Baroness Featherstone
I am somewhat in sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on ending the scheme in 2020. She also raised the issue of the political element. With an election in 2022, if not before, I would not want to see a race on who could cap the most as a part of political manifestos. What the energy market needs is a real resolution.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I hope that I can deal with this group of amendments in the two, three or four-dimensional manner that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has asked me to. Given that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe moved the first amendment, I should say that, like her, generally speaking the Government are not convinced about price caps. We have our doubts and we made it clear at Second Reading that we do not like to go down this route and we said that it had to be temporary, albeit with an ability to extend the cap for a short while, year by year, but no more than that.
The aim of my noble friend’s amendment is to end it in 2020. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, also has some sympathy with that, as she returns her party to classic, 19th-century liberalism—a wonderful development. We believe that it should be a temporary measure and that 2020 is the right time to end it, with the ability to extend it to a final, absolute sunset in 2023. I do not think that removing the possibility of extending would provide consumers with protection if the conditions for effective competition were not in place at the same time. As I said, we prefer to do it that way. I rather dread the thought of further primary legislation each year if we wanted to extend it or do it for another year. We have already had that with other Bills.
My noble friend asked if I could report a little on the prepayment meter cap and the effect it has had. The evidence seems to be that, since the cap, prices have come down to below it. There has been some bunching of prices, but there is competition below the cap in the prepayment market. That shows that these things can occasionally work. However, as I said to my noble friend, philosophically we do not like the idea of caps. I rather agree with her.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke to Amendment 32, the purpose of which appears to be to create a firm link between the price cap’s removal and the completion of the rollout of smart meters. It seems to suggest that the cap can be extended in circumstances where the smart meters programme has been completed, but the conditions for effective competition are not in place. The rollout of smart meters is but one of many possible indicators that define a competitive market. There will be other indicators of the conditions for effective competition. Ofgem’s consultation points towards other factors that might indicate that the conditions for effective competition are in place, including ways of improving customer engagement and increasing switching. I am sure that the amendment aims to be helpful, but I believe it is simpler and safer to leave it to Ofgem to assess the conditions for effective competition, rather than put provisions on the face of the Bill that would link statements about the future of the price cap to particular programmes.
The noble Lord also spoke to Amendments 33 and 35. The Government would not wish to see an inversion of this Bill’s policy intention by removing the price cap’s sunset clause. I repeat that we have no intention of delivering an indefinite price cap. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, this is a targeted and temporary intervention until the conditions for effective competition are in place. I think that is why the Bill achieved broad, cross-party consensus in another place and was endorsed by the BEIS Select Committee. Amendment 35 would also increase the risk of transforming this temporary measure into a permanent feature of the retail energy market. Again, we do not believe that that would be appropriate.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 37, which is a probing amendment seeking to understand the purpose of Clause 9. Clause 9 empowers Ofgem to modify the standard supply licence conditions following the removal or cessation of the tariff cap as specified under Clause 8. The clause allows Ofgem to modify the standard supply licence conditions as it considers necessary or expedient, but with the requirement that Ofgem publishes the modifications to alert all stakeholders as to the impact of the modifications. The publication of the Secretary of State’s decision will alert stakeholders to the cap coming to an end. This provision would enable the licence conditions to be tidied up to reflect the cap being lifted. Otherwise, they would remain in the licence but would be redundant.
We have been clear that the price cap is a necessary intervention in the market, but one that should only remain until the conditions for effective competition are in place. The decision on extending or removing the cap will be made in the light of the report and recommendation from the expert regulator. The Government are not prepared to enable this price cap to be a permanent feature as it could risk distorting the market, but noble Lords will wish to note that Ofgem has enduring powers to protect consumers and specific duties regarding vulnerable consumers. Indeed, Ofgem has indicated that it may be necessary to have in place price protection for a narrower set of consumers once the price cap under this Bill has ceased to be in place.
I hope I have provided the appropriate assurances. Though the amendments are coming from rather different directions, I hope first of all that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment with the assurance I have given and, secondly, that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will not feel it necessary to move his amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for his philosophical reassurance. Certainly, I would not want to add a link to smart meters because, as he said, it is only one factor that we will need to take into account. The extension power in Clause 8 gives the Executive too much power and I ask the Minister to give the matter further thought before Report, but I withdraw my amendment with great pleasure.
“Ongoing relative tariff differential
(1) The Secretary of State must, during the term of the tariff cap conditions being in place, develop, ready for implementation, a relative tariff differential. (2) A relative tariff differential is a requirement on supply licence holders that the difference between the cheapest advertised rate and the most expensive standard variable or default rate shall be no more than a specified proportion of the cheapest advertised rate.(3) The Authority will be responsible for setting the proportion referred to in subsection (2).(4) The relative tariff differential shall take effect on the termination of the tariff cap conditions.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we have reached the last group, which is composed of two amendments on roughly the same area. I will not speak to Amendment 36A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, but I am looking forward to what she has to say. I might come back at the end of that.
The Minister said in concluding on what I thought to be my rather wonderful Amendment 32, which found no favour, that smart meters are only one of the many ways one could judge whether the market for an electricity supplier was working well. What he was really saying was that switching was the real test and that meters were a means to that. But Christmas comes more than once a year when you are talking about Bills of this nature. We want to offer him another Christmas present, Amendment 36, which will give him all that he wants about the effective market and more. We urge him, even at this later hour and towards the end of a gruelling day that he has had to endure, to look very carefully at this.
The answer to most of the problems in the electricity market, certainly from a consumer point of view, comes down to this tease and squeeze. Amendment 36 takes the trick of eliminating that, because if you impose a relative cap—we would argue that that should be done after the absolute cap has finished, but my noble friend will argue a different approach—then the present arrangements under which companies can entice you to switch with an attractive offer made for the first year, or possibly less, of the time that you move to their mode of operating, billing and consumer care would mean that they could not then squeeze you once you have passed that initial period. If there is a chance that Ofgem can limit the differential between the highest and lowest prices charged by each supplier after the absolute cap ends, we will have emerged to a point where there will not be the incredible unfairness and problems that there are in the current market. We could therefore move away from the temporary cap with confidence.
I urge the Minister to think very carefully about this because it does supply for taking out this egregious behaviour and it would find a lot of support around the industry. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 36A. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for putting his name to it.
The discussions around the Bill have touched on the loyalty penalty and the tease-and-squeeze tactics mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, which are the root cause. In good consumer markets, competition drives down prices to deliver good outcomes for all customers—even those who shop around only every once in a while—because new customers see the same prices as loyal customers. In bad consumer markets, competition pits a small minority of highly engaged customers against the vast majority of those who, quite reasonably, engage only occasionally. These loyal customers cross-subsidise deals for a tiny minority of new customers for the first year of their deals. We know that those who can least afford it are disproportionately losing out under this broken market. To put it another way, our poorest citizens are subsidising the better-off in society. Currently, this loyalty penalty runs to hundreds of pounds per year being overpaid by millions of people to companies that exploit them. It is good that the absolute price cap will set an upper limit on the effects of this detriment, but it will still allow the behaviour to continue. It would be a wasted opportunity to allow this legislation to pass without also addressing the cause of the loyalty penalty.
Amendments 36 and 36A propose a relative price cap: a limit between a supplier’s cheapest tariff and its most expensive. In moving Amendment 36, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara set out the arguments for a relative price cap. I want to add my support to this for two reasons. The first is fairness. We must bring an end to the grotesque idea that markets must necessarily punish those customers who do not relentlessly police them. Britain’s consumer regulations are some of the best in the world. They embody the principles of transparency and fair play to ensure that customers operate on a level playing field with corporations, so that our citizens can use their collective consumer power to get a better deal for everyone. That means that shopkeepers who short-change us, or manufacturers that mislabel their products, can be brought to justice.
However, in this area, our regulations simply fail, and they fail our most vulnerable citizens the hardest. They must be updated for the modern era. We must send a signal to markets—and the companies that seek to operate within them—that a “divide and conquer” or “tease and squeeze” approach to customers is not acceptable. Our hard-working citizens deserve to buy a product from a retailer without having the price hiked up when they are not looking. We must banish the principle of tease and squeeze.
Secondly, the role of legislation should be to bring lasting, meaningful reform that addresses the root cause of the problems facing our society. The loyalty penalty is a self-perpetuating dynamic. Efficient suppliers who want to offer good-value prices to their customers and not inflict tease-and-squeeze deals on them are disadvantaged in a market in which competition is purely driven by their position on a price comparison website. We have already seen this happen with some of the early challenger suppliers, which have started to ape the behaviour of the big six so that they can succeed in the market. Unless we break this cycle, the market will continue to be dysfunctional. The absolute cap will partially mask the symptoms for a couple of years, but the core detriment will continue and return with full force once the cap is lifted.
Introducing a limit on the gap between a supplier’s cheapest tariff and its most expensive will force companies to compete equally for new customers and loyal customers. This will reveal once and for all which companies are genuinely driving costs down and which companies are masking the real cost all along through pricing trickery. Some well-meaning people have warned that a relative price cap could lead to the big six removing their cheapest deals from the market, but we know that these so-called cheap deals are anything but, as 95% of people will roll on to an expensive tariff at the end of their first year, and end up paying more overall. Losing these deceptive deals would be good riddance to bad rubbish.
What is more, once we make pricing transparent, we will unleash the forces of the dozens of newer, more efficient suppliers. Once they are able to compete on a level playing field, customers will see a daily price war for their custom, as we see for groceries. By cleaning up energy pricing, customers who switch can be confident of getting a cheaper supplier, not one that is simply dangling misleading offers. Switching will be worthwhile, instead of being a merry-go-round, and we will restore consumer trust in a market that currently does not deserve it.
In moving Amendment 36, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara has already proposed that a relative price cap should be implemented after the price cap, but why wait to introduce meaningful reform to a market that has already been failing customers for two decades? If something is worth doing, it is worth doing now. What is more, we are going to see a full-scale rollout of smart meters in the next two years. That gives us an imminent deadline to clean up pricing and restore trust in the market. Otherwise, we face a real danger that people will reject the opportunities that smart energy can provide.
Amendment 36A proposes that the relative price cap should be introduced immediately, alongside the absolute price cap, and be ongoing. Amendment 36 will therefore give customers the choice to stay where they are without fear of being exploited and remove the need to hunt every year for a fair price. It could be a step towards reducing the number of tariffs on the market, making buying energy even simpler for customers. Introducing a fair mechanism into the UK energy market is long overdue and benefits everyone, from those who buy energy to their suppliers, who are forced to improve their efficiencies to compete. That is why a relative price cap is a good idea for everyone and why it should be implemented at the same time as the absolute cap and be ongoing. I hope the Minister will see the benefits in both these amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Noble Lords will know that I am not in favour of extending the cap, in whatever way. However, I am interested to hear about the relative tariff differential and would like to understand further how that works. I think the proposal here is that it should be imposed as well as a cap—it seems to me that that gives you a double regulation and I am not convinced that that is necessary. It would, however, be good to understand—the Minister may well be able to comment on this—what the advantages are of a relative cap in relation to the end I think we all seek, which is a more competitive market.
The noble Baroness mentioned retailers. As I was a retailer, I know that 19% to 20% of customers changing their supplier annually is quite a high figure, but the key point is that the underlying dynamics in the market are encouraging players to reduce prices and to innovate. That is what we want to see in energy. It would be good to hear from the Minister how he sees that happening in a situation where we have a cap, whatever its nature.
Lord Henley
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, to our discussions. Amendments 36 and 36A are broadly similar in asking the Secretary of State to develop an ongoing relative tariff differential. However, Amendment 36 says:
“The relative tariff differential shall take effect on the termination of the tariff cap conditions”,
while Amendment 36A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, to which a Liberal, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has joined his name—it must have good free-market credentials—says:
“The relative tariff differential is to take effect on the commencement of the tariff cap conditions and to be ongoing after the tariff cap conditions cease”.
They are broadly similar but would come into effect at different times. They would cap the most expensive advertised variable and default rate tariffs as a proportion of the cheapest, and Ofgem would set the differential.
There may be a need for further protections once the cap has ended, particularly for vulnerable consumers. Ofgem has indicated as much and has enduring powers to operate protections but I do not think it would be sensible to seek to determine the precise form that any protection takes, if it is needed at all. The energy market is likely to change significantly between now and then. Smart meters are just one part of that. The new clause inserted by these amendments would seem to introduce an indefinite relative price cap. It is not the intention of the Bill or the Government to put in place such a permanent cap.
We have come back again to tease and squeeze, which the noble Lord mentioned earlier. I briefly responded to that. I appreciate that the aim is to get rid of the practice of tease and squeeze. However, there is the risk that under the amendments suppliers would raise their least expensive standard variable and default tariffs, rather than decrease their most expensive. That is the Government’s fundamental concern about any kind of relative price cap. The Government and others, including the BEIS Select Committee, believe that a relative price cap would not work. I do not see how the outcome of a relative price cap would be any different, whether it was in place alongside an absolute cap or after the absolute price cap had been removed. A relative cap as a permanent feature of the market risks undoing the work of the temporary absolute cap.
The best way of ending the practice of tease and squeeze will be the detailed work, as I said, that Ofgem is undertaking to test better ways to secure customer engagement; the work to make switching quicker and more reliable; and the many other programmes to make the market work better. Recent changes mean suppliers can now make their default tariff a fixed-rate rather than a variable-rate deal, and many have done so. The Government believe that better engagement and better switching that leads to more effective competition is a proportionate and sustainable solution, rather than concurrent and permanent relative price caps. I hope that my explanations will satisfy noble Lords and my noble friend. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Kennedy for a powerful speech, trying to root the approach we are taking in a much deeper analysis—a richer and more enduring issue about what is going on in the marketplace as far as consumers are concerned, which is a theme we have developed throughout the Committee.
We would all be much happier with the Government’s approach if we could see real evidence that things were changing in the market. The thing that gives the lie to a lot of what the Government’s position is based on is that, for many years now, we have all seen the appalling behaviour on the part of semi-monopolies, operating virtually as they will against a regulator which does not have the powers. The Minister said that Ofgem had enduring powers. If it has them, why has it not acted before now to get rid of some of these appalling behaviours such as tease and squeeze, which has been so disruptive, and making super-profits out of a natural monopoly? I thought the whole point about regulatory structures was to prevent that. Therefore, I do not think the action has lived up to the rhetoric.
My noble friend said that she thought it was time to say good riddance to the bad rubbish we are being served up by these committees. The judgment we have to make is whether we are prepared to wait and see whether the latest round of the approach taken by the Government will have any effect at all. If, indeed, it has an effect, will it be in time? I have my doubts about that. We are relying on smart meters and customers, who may be in significant numbers in relative terms, but if it is all the same people switching regularly and 80% of people are not switching—and those 80% are the sort one would expect to get the message and switch—then the market is broken. If it is broken, it will need much more serious measures than we have currently to see how it may be taken forward. We will think carefully about this but may want to come back to it on Report. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Prisons: Women with Dependants
Baroness Fall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of women in prison have dependants under 16 years old; and what is the average length of stay in prison for such women.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the significant impact that the imprisonment of a parent has on their children. Approximately 60% of women in custody have children but we do not collect data on the age of the child or whether they were dependants at the time of the mother being taken into custody. The average length of stay for women in prison recorded as having children is 1.5 years, versus 2.6 years for women not recorded as having children.
Baroness Fall (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply but is it not the case that we have more women going to prison, the vast majority of them for non-violent offences and many of whom have dependants? These children are being sent out of their homes to stay with relatives or into the care system. The cost of these broken homes to the children and to society as a whole should surely be of concern to us all. I urge the Minister to reflect on more family-friendly policies in future.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, as at 8 June there were 3,886 women in custody. That is approximately 5% of the total prison population, and that figure has remained relatively stable over recent years. So it is not the case that there are more women in prison, but it is true that most—73%—are there for non-violent crimes. When an offender gets to the court they are asked whether they have dependent children and, if they do, that is taken into account in sentencing.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, when can we expect the strategy on women in prison, which we have been expecting since last year?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is of course our aim to provide the best rehabilitative regimes, specifically tailored to women’s needs. To that end, the noble Lord is quite right that we have a female offenders strategy in progress at the moment. The department is working very hard on it and it will be published as soon as we are able.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that there are a number of women who have been sent to prison for very modest offences—for example, not paying their TV licence—and their three or four children have then been taken into care?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend raises a number of complex issues. I shall address the issue of TV licences because this is very important: 109,000 women are given a fine for not paying their TV licence, versus 42,000 men. It is not the case that they are then put in prison for not paying the TV licence; that happens occasionally if they do not pay the fine, and many poor decisions have to be taken in order for them to go to prison. I agree, though, that it is wrong that more women than men are being given fines for this offence, and we know that the BBC will be updating the Public Accounts Committee on this issue very soon.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, the Ministry of Justice has produced clear evidence that women’s centres are effective at reducing reoffending, provide joined-up community services to support physical and mental health needs and give more opportunities to women to have access to their children. What assessment does the Minister make of the need for increased funding to sustain and open more women’s centres?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, women’s centres and women’s services in general play an incredibly important role in supporting female offenders, many of whom have hugely complex needs. Over 50% of female offenders were abused as children and 60% experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. I think noble Lords will all agree that female offenders are on average potentially more complex than male offenders and need a wide variety of well-funded support.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, 17,000 children are affected by their mother going into prison and only 50% of them stay in the home where their mother was. Moreover, one in four women sentenced to imprisonment serves only 30 days. Is it not time that the Government and the judiciary looked at the effectiveness of imprisonment for these women, taking into account the fact that there are only 12 women’s custodial establishments? This puts a further geographical distance between the child and the mother. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will act to rectify these difficulties?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord will have seen recently that the Lord Chancellor is focusing on short custodial sentences for both women and men. It is important that we increase the confidence of judges and magistrates in community sentences. We are working hard to improve this. The noble Lord is right to say that there are 12 female prisons across the country. The average distance from home for female prisoners is currently 54 miles—down from 68 miles in 2016. We are making progress and some of those numbers will be boosted by certain offenders needing to be far away from home to access specific services, such as psychological services.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Howard League for Penal Reform recently found that only 5% of children whose mothers are sent to prison remain in their home. I wonder who is being punished here. Will the Minister take back to this long overdue strategy for female offenders a presumption against prison for short-term sentencing of women?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, there is already a presumption against short-term sentencing. Custody is imposed only when an offence is so serious that only custody is merited. We are looking at how we can strengthen this particular guideline. Families as a whole play a very important part in a child’s upbringing so of course we must look at getting rid of short sentences for women, but we must also look at getting rid of them for men too.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, 94—or maybe 96—women have died in prison since my noble friend Lady Corston’s report was published. This recommends precisely what the Minister has just talked about—that custodial short sentences for women should be stopped and phased out. Has the Minister read the recent report from Inquest on the deaths of those women? How often in the last year have Ministry of Justice Ministers met the families of those who have died in prison?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
If the noble Lord is happy for me to do so‘, I will write to him with the information he requested. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to read the report he mentioned, but I certainly will do. Female suicide is a very serious and tragic issue. Thankfully, we have had just one death in custody in the last 12 months; in the previous year it was 10. However, we are talking about a smaller number of female prisoners as a whole. There is also the issue of self-harm. Women are five times more likely than men to self-harm in prison. We are well aware of this and are doing whatever we can to make sure that they are protected.
Flood Risk
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce future flood risk.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and refer to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, between 2015 and 2021, we are investing £2.6 billion in managing flood risk, including 1,500 flood defence schemes using both hard engineering and natural flood management solutions. As a result, 300,000 homes, 690,000 acres of agricultural land, 279 miles of railway and more than 5,000 miles of roads will be better protected. A further £1 billion is being spent to maintain defences.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Will my noble friend look favourably on the report to be published next week, entitled Bricks and Water, by the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum, the two central conclusions of which are that that the new environmental body will have real teeth when it comes to upholding environmental standards in flood protection and that farmers could be reimbursed for public good, such as retaining water on land? I know that my noble friend and the Department are keen on natural flood defences such as Pickering’s Slowing the Flow, and I hope that that will be the model.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we are consulting on the new body, but we have strong aspirations, particularly with our 25-year environment plan, to enhance the environment, and of course that involves reducing risk from natural hazards such as flooding. Given the responses to the Health and Harmony consultation on future farming arrangements, we are also exploring ways to incentivise farming methods that reduce flood risk. Slowing the Flow, at Pickering, to which my noble friend refers, is a good example of natural flood management.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the flooding of Millbank House and its subsequent closure shows how quickly flash flooding can affect any infrastructure, particularly vital infrastructure. We know that tube stations, electricity substations and so on have been knocked out in the past. Has a national survey been done of vital infrastructure where flooding could knock out services, what steps are being taken to ensure that we protect it from flash flooding, and when can we be assured that the things that keep the country moving will be protected in the longer term? What is the deadline for doing all the repair and protection of that infrastructure that will allow us to sleep more soundly in our beds?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, surface water is often much more difficult to forecast than flooding from rivers. Obviously, flash flooding has occurred, but following earlier floods the National Flood Resilience Review, published in September 2016, specifically examined the scale of flood risk and the resilience of infrastructure to flooding. That is why there are many examples of utility companies and other national infrastructure locations ensuring, rightly, that their assets are better protected from flooding. Much of this work will continue for the long term: adapting to climate change, changing with coastal erosion and deciding where the coast is to retreat and where we need to replenish. All this is part of a cocktail that we will always continue to consider.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I know that the Minister is well aware of the value of trees in general and regarding flooding in particular. I again urge him to do all he can to encourage tree planting in areas that are liable to flood.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Undoubtedly. To go back to Slowing the Flow at Pickering, tree planting was part of that process. It is about crops to be grown, trees and buffer zones. We are increasingly realising that there are all sorts of ways in which natural capital is a resource for us to use, and that we can work with farmers and landowners to support it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
Flooding can be devastating for businesses, homeowners and tenants. The cost to business can sometimes result in the business folding. Despite flood risk measures, many retailers and businesses have been flooded several times. As Flood Re applies only to domestic properties that cannot get insurance due to flood risk, do the Government have any plans to introduce a scheme that would help hard-pressed businesses which also suffer from the continual threat of flooding?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, whether it affects families, communities or businesses, clearly flooding is devastating and the clear-up can be very much a long-term affair for many. That is precisely why the business-led Property Flood Resilience Roundtable published an action plan in 2016. It is now working on a flood resilience code of practice—this is really important for places such as York, which unfortunately flood very frequently—and how to adapt the electricity supply, for example, so that if there is future flooding, recovery is much speedier. That is the way forward.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)
I am not sure whether I heard properly, but in spite of the United Nations World Water Development Report, which promotes very favourable natural solutions for water, both ecologically and financially, did the Minister say that out of £2.2 billion, we are spending only £15 million on natural-based solutions? If so, can we think again?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I did not talk about £15 million, but there are some specific projects involving natural capital and the £15 million that I did not mention. But, the £2.6 billion includes both hard engineering and the use of natural capital in the scheme. So, the £15 million is about specific, often community- led projects.
Stalkers: Electronic Tagging
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage other police forces to take action similar to that of the Metropolitan Police in electronically tagging known stalkers to alert victims that they are nearby.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to exploring how technology such as electronic tagging can be used to protect vulnerable victims. We have recently consulted on this through our public consultation on the future domestic abuse Bill. In addition, the Government have supported the introduction of a new civil stalking protection order, through the Stalking Protection Bill, which will provide police forces with a vital additional tool to protect victims of stalking.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that Answer. If this scheme works, it could be very effective. Can the Minister say how the new Stalking Threat Assessment Centre, set up by the Metropolitan Police, which will involve three police forces, three NHS trusts and charities to pilot the new approach to combat stalking and protect victims will be assessed? When and how will they report on the pilot, which I understand will be for a two-year period? Will the Minister bring the report to your Lordships’ House to have a full discussion on its merits, any proposals for rollout, and funding for all police forces?
Baroness Manzoor
The new police civil orders will be very important in relation to stalking. As the noble Baroness will know, the police transformation fund is a police-led process, so it is the responsibility of police forces themselves to decide how to evaluate their own projects. The Home Office provides assurance through the grant agreement process to ensure that a rigorous assessment of PTF projects is conducted quarterly and a final evaluation is provided on completion of any project that has been funded. This ensures that wider learning is captured and can be shared across the country by both police forces and the department.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
In 2000 Tony Blair proposed that stalkers should have electronic tagging, but 18 years on we are still waiting. There are many victims of stalking, including Tracey Morgan, who suffered over a decade of being harassed and stalked by her former partner, and said:
“When he is released, my sentence starts”.
The key thing about the proposed new tags is that they give proximity alerts to victims, which is an important reassurance. Can the Minister assure us that the results of the consultation will happen speedily, and that the scheme will be introduced to give reassurance to victims of stalking across the country?
Baroness Manzoor
I agree with the noble Baroness that stalking can have terrifying consequences for the victim—certainly if the perpetrator has been convicted. Part of electronic monitoring is a rollout programme that will happen as a result of the transformation fund that I just mentioned. How this is taken forward will be up to police forces, but I agree that electronic surveillance, both for the perpetrator and the victim, if it is done on a voluntary basis, is perhaps the way forward.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, there are a number of schemes available involving tags that seem to be doing quite well, but there is no clear strategy to join them together. It will be important in the future to allow the police live monitoring of these tags. At the moment, they are outsourced and monitored elsewhere, and reports of breaches of the tags are then reported to the police later. I ask the Minister to consider that as part of future strategy as these things develop.
Baroness Manzoor
I will clarify what I said to the previous question. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said: there needs to be much more joined-up thinking about electronic tagging. Indeed, this is what the Government are doing. It may be necessary to have primary legislation to ensure that electronic tagging can take place. What I meant by voluntary is that, at the moment, the Met can ask both the perpetrator and the victim if they wish to be tagged.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Will it be possible for the police to have real-time monitoring or will it be subcontracted to a third party—when, inevitably, the notification that a stalker is close to somebody will come much later?
Baroness Manzoor
The short answer is that I am not clear about outsourcing. It is right to say that, when police forces have the funding available, how they carry out that particular activity will be a matter for them. I will write to the noble Lord to clarify that situation.
Bereavement Benefits
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Polak
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of changes made to bereavement benefits on 6 April 2017 on parents with dependent children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
Bereavement support payment focuses support in the immediate months following a bereavement, when it is needed most. It is intended to meet the additional costs associated with bereavement, rather than providing an ongoing income replacement. Unlike its predecessors, it is not taken into account for income-related benefits, thus helping those on lowest incomes. We intend to assess the impact of these reforms once sufficient evidence is available.
Lord Polak (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. At the most welcome announcement a few weeks ago of the establishment of the children’s funeral fund, following the brilliant and emotional campaign led by Carolyn Harris, the Prime Minister said this:
“In the darkest moment of any parent’s life there is little light—but there can be support”.
While I agree with the Government’s aim of cutting dependency and making work pay, in April 2017 the law changed and I argued then, as I do now, that the support for children of school age who have lost a parent should continue throughout their schooling and not be cut and limited to 18 months. I ask the Minister to urge her colleagues to restore the full amount for bereaved children. Clearly if a child loses a parent the child will experience dark moments, there will be little light and there should be continued support.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, my noble friend asked a Question about bereavement support payment and I have the greatest sympathy with people in this situation. However, we are talking about a system that was set up over 90 years ago to support women following World War I who would never be expected to work again and support their family, and who had no other means of support. This change restores fairness to the system by focusing on the 19-month period after a loved one dies. Unlike its predecessor, it applies to both men and women. It is not taxed and is not taken into account for income-related benefits to support children when in need, thus helping those on low incomes the most.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, how will Brexit affect the payment of this benefit to eligible EU nationals living here and British people living in the EU?
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, we have so far been considering the very young, but bereavement is a disabling condition that makes it very difficult for elderly people to manage their affairs. Can my noble friend assure us that people who qualify will be notified in simple language about the amount of their entitlement and the time it will last? Furthermore, would it not be a good idea to issue a warning notice or a reminder for those who may have lost track of what is happening, say a month before it ends?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, when an individual registers the death of their spouse or civil partner, the registrar provides information on how to contact the Department for Work and Pensions bereavement service. That includes giving advice on what benefits will be available, including the bereavement support payment. The time limit for claiming the initial lump sum is now more generous, at 12 months from the date of death—that is £2,500 for those who do not have dependent children and £3,500 for those who do. The time limit is three months from the date of death for claiming the additional monthly bereavement support payment, which is £100 a month for 18 months for those without children and £350 for those with dependent children. We take every opportunity to encourage claimants to make a claim for bereavement support as early as possible.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, when the Government brought this in, they said that it was not about saving money—although, as it happens, it will cost less than half what the old system did. They said that the aims were to be simple and encourage self-dependency, but we are talking about people who got married, had children and thought that they would be looking after themselves as a family until the worst possible thing happened. We end up then with somebody becoming a single parent; they are themselves bereaved and having to raise children who are bereaved. That is surely the situation for which the welfare state was pretty much invented. If the Government are going to think again, would they please think really hard, recycle some of those savings and do the right thing?
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Baroness will know that those in need of additional income-related benefits will receive them, as well as child benefit for those with dependent children, for example. This is not a cost-cutting exercise. We are investing an extra £40 million in each of the first two years after the reform. This is a modernisation of an outdated system, which relates to a time when women were not expected to work and, indeed, there were not jobs available for them. We are spending more than £95 billion on working-age benefits to help those in need. People in receipt of the bereavement support payment can access other parts of the welfare system if they need it. With regard to being a lone parent, it is important to add that the problem with the old system was that, if one remarried or went into a civil partnership, one lost that entitlement altogether. People do not lose it under this system.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I understand that my noble friend has her brief from the department, but I urge her please to go back to her officials and question them about what they perceive as the fairness of these changes. Money is being taken away from families with young children, three-quarters of whom will lose out and 90% of whom will receive support for less time. That money is being recycled to families without children, while the 21% of families whose parents choose not to marry or decide to cohabit receive absolutely nothing. Overall, by 2020, the cost savings will be in the tens of millions of pounds. Before the 18 month-period expires around November this year, I urge her to look into the possibility of devising a bereavement payment specifically designed for children, so that their parents can be there for them. The damage to their mental health and educational attainment has been well documented.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I will not be going back to the officials because—
Baroness Buscombe
My noble friend does not have the facts correct. May I make it absolutely clear that this payment is designed for people after the terrifically difficult loss of a loved one? It is not intended to be equivalent to the period of grief following spousal bereavement: it is designed to support people with the additional costs associated with bereavement rather than to provide an income replacement. Income-based benefits are more suited to provide that longer-term assistance with everyday living costs. With this benefit, the Government are therefore seeking to provide financial support through the acute period to facilitate the process of readjustment. This is nothing to do with families losing money. Noble Lords should take care before seeking to scaremonger in this way.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
In reply to an earlier question, the noble Baroness suggested that Brexit would make no difference to the circumstances that have been discussed. As the Minister responsible for Brexit has failed to give us clear answers on almost every aspect of Brexit, can she now spell out for us the specific basis on which she gave the House that assurance?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Lord for his question, as indeed I am advised that we cannot be absolutely sure, and I therefore apologise to the House for initially saying that.
Baroness Buscombe
To the best of my knowledge—it was and still is my understanding—through the whole process of leaving the EU, we seek to transport into UK law all those laws that impact on EU citizens and on British citizens living abroad. During that process, there is no question of us impacting on this important payment.
Serious Violence Strategy
Baroness Manzoor
That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s Serious Violence Strategy.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased that we are having this debate in the House today and that there is a strong willingness, across both Houses, to tackle this most challenging issue of serious violence.
We have been extremely concerned about the increase in the rates of knife crime, gun crime and homicide, and the horrendous attacks involving acids and corrosives. Since the beginning of the year, there have been—sadly and tragically—74 reported homicides on London’s streets alone, and many of these have been stabbings. It is, however, not a London issue alone. Tragically, for example, we have also seen fatal stabbings in Wolverhampton, Ipswich and Sheffield in recent days. The Office for National Statistics has reported that, from December 2016 to December 2017, police-recorded knife crime increased by 22%, the possession of knives increased by 33%, offences involving firearms increased by 11%, and homicides increased by 9%.
Too many young people have, sadly, lost their lives in needless violence, and it simply has to stop. This is clearly unacceptable. We are determined to end this deadly cycle of violence, and that is why the Government published the Serious Violence Strategy in April this year. Anyone committing these acts of violence must feel the full force of the law. Our absolute priority is the safety and security of our citizens, and my heart goes out to the victims and their family members and friends who have been affected by this senseless violence. It is incumbent on all of us to do whatever we can to help tackle it in every way possible.
On 9 April this year, as I said, the Government published their Serious Violence Strategy, which set out the action we are taking to address serious violence and, in particular, the recent increases in knife crime, gun crime and homicide. The strategy sets out an ambitious programme involving over 60 commitments and actions, supported by £40 million over two years to back the initiatives in the Serious Violence Strategy.
It is very important to stress that the approach to tackling serious violence set out in the strategy is a multiple-strand approach. Law enforcement remains very important, but the strategy is not solely focused on law enforcement, as it depends also on partnerships across a number of different sectors such as education, health and the voluntary sector. In particular, the strategy stresses the importance of early intervention to tackle the root causes of serious violence and to provide young people with the skills and resilience to lead productive lives free from violence.
The scope of the strategy is concerned with specific types of crime such as homicide, knife crime and gun crime, and the use of acids and corrosives as weapons. It also covers areas of criminality where serious violence is inherent such as gangs and county lines drugs dealing. Serious violence extends to other forms of serious assault, of course. We know that a significant proportion of violence is linked to either domestic abuse or alcohol, but these two important elements are not driving the increases we are seeing in violent crime. The strategy does not address specifically sexual abuse, modern slavery or violence against women and girls. They may all involve forms of serious violence but there are already specific strategies that address those important issues, and so they are not included within the scope of the strategy.
What is behind the recent increase in serious violence? Our analysis shows that about half the rise in knife and gun crime is likely to be due to improvements in police recording of crime, but for the remainder a major factor behind the increase is changes in the drugs market. Crack-cocaine markets have strong links to serious violence, and the latest evidence suggests that crack use is rising in England and Wales due to a mix of supply and demand factors, such as increased supply of cocaine from overseas and the spread of county lines drugs dealing which is associated with hard class A drugs.
In addition, drugs-market violence and gang-related violence is facilitated and spread by social media, which has become more and more accessible and part of everyday life through the widespread adoption of smartphones over the past decade. Social media platforms such as YouTube and Instagram are used to glamorise the gang or drug-dealing life, to taunt rivals and to normalise weapons carrying. Sadly, it leads to tit for tat.
Through our analysis in the strategy, we have also identified that the increases in violence have been accompanied by a shift towards younger victims and perpetrators than earlier in this decade. We have also identified that we are not alone in seeing recent increases in serious violence. The US, Canada and a number of other European countries have seen similar long-term trends. This suggests that there is a global component to the trend and so our strategy includes a commitment to hold an international violent crime symposium in autumn 2018. This will bring together academics and experts to explore the trends in serious violence in different parts of the world.
Our analysis points to a range of factors driving increases in serious violence. The issue is complex, but our analysis is that changes in the drugs market are a major factor behind the recent increases. While there is good evidence that enforcement can play a vital role in tackling these offences, most academics agree that big shifts in crime trends tend to be driven by factors outside of the police’s control—such as drugs trends and markets, changes in housing, vehicle security and so on. Available evidence suggests this latest shift in serious violence is no exception. We are aware of, and have noted, though, what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said recently about police resources, and the Home Secretary has committed to making police funding a priority at the next spending review, which will set budgets for the longer term.
As I have said, the Serious Violence Strategy puts a greater emphasis than previously on early intervention and prevention. It is at the heart of the approach in the strategy and has been informed by our analysis of the evidence of what works and is most effective with young people. The work on early intervention and prevention focuses on steering young people away from crime and tackling root causes. As we all know and accept, we cannot arrest our way out of the issue, so we are clear that we must prevent young people from committing serious violence by developing their resilience and supporting positive alternatives to a life of crime, with timely interventions.
The Serious Violence Strategy sets out a range of universal and targeted interventions, including the early intervention youth fund, which will be launched this summer, to which police and crime commissioners can apply. The fund is designed to help local partnerships support early intervention and prevention activity with young people. It has £11 million available over two years to support such local activity and will link up with existing programmes.
We will also provide support additional support for organisations such as Redthread to expand and pilot its youth violence intervention programme outside London in Nottingham and Birmingham and continue to develop its service in London hospitals. The Redthread programme is based on the concept of the “teachable moment”. This means that hospital emergency department staff will ask a youth worker to speak to a young person who has been admitted with violent injuries caused by stabbing, for example. If they need help, the youth worker will help identify and refer them to where they can get help to leave a gang for example.
I now move on to how the strategy will tackle specific areas of violence, beginning with county lines, because drugs are a major factor behind the recent increases in violence. What are county lines? Gangs and organised criminal networks involved in exporting illegal drugs into one or more importing areas in the UK, use dedicated mobile phone lines or other form of “deal line”. They are likely to exploit children and vulnerable adults to move and store the drugs and money and they will often use violence. This is a major cross-cutting issue involving drugs, violence, gangs, safeguarding, child criminal exploitation, modern slavery and missing persons, and it involves the police, a wide range of government departments, local government agencies and voluntary sector organisations.
We are particularly concerned about the county lines issue because of the violence and exploitation of children and vulnerable people that it involves. That is why we are supporting the establishment of a new £3.6 million national county lines co-ordination centre to help bring together the law enforcement effort. The links behind county lines are complicated, and the threat crosses police force boundaries. The centre will support the police operationally, help build the intelligence picture and support police forces to close down mobile phone numbers used for county lines drug dealing.
The strategy also sets out how we will work with the Department for Education on the support and advice offered to children educated in alternative provision, including those who have been excluded, to reduce the risk of them becoming victims of county lines exploitation and being drawn into crime.
We are taking a range of actions to tackle knife crime focused on operational enforcement, work with retailers, legislation and early intervention and prevention. In March, we launched a major media advertising campaign, #knifefree, which is aimed at raising awareness among young people and young adults about the risks of carrying knives. This was chiefly delivered through social media targeted at young people. We are currently evaluating the campaign, but it has had a very positive response from our partners.
We are also providing up to £1 million for each of the next two years for our anti-knife crime community fund. This fund, which was launched on 18 May, provides support for local initiatives which work with young people to tackle knife crime. It includes early intervention and education, as well as mentoring and outreach work. Last year, we supported 47 projects across England and Wales through the community fund.
We are also taking action to improve legislation and practice in relation to the ownership and licensing of firearms. We are actively strengthening controls on legally owned firearms to mitigate the risk of them coming into someone’s possession illegally and being used for criminal purposes. It is clearly important that the controls are as robust as possible to prevent firearms getting into the hands of criminals, and we are taking action including the greater regulation of antique firearms, statutory guidance to be issued to the police on firearms and shotgun licensing, and improving the arrangements for the use of medical information in licensing decisions.
Attacks on people involving acids or other corrosives are a serious matter that can result in huge distress and life-changing injuries. We are taking action, with proposed new legislation to make it an offence to sell the most harmful corrosive substances to someone under 18 years of age. Although the strategy places a new emphasis on early intervention, we are clear that, where individuals commit serious violent offences, they must be met with a robust law enforcement response.
Taking effective action means that the issue needs to be understood and owned locally. Communities and the relevant partners must also see tackling serious violence as their problem. Police and crime commissioners have a vital leadership role to play through working with and across community safety partnerships. Other local partnerships can also play an important role.
Our strategy also sets out how we will continue to support communities to build local resilience and awareness by continuing to match-fund local area reviews. The reviews help to identify the resilience and capability of local areas in responding to gang-related threats, with follow-on support to help partners. To date, we have funded 28 local reviews across England and Wales and two strategic reviews in Bedfordshire and Thames Valley. In turn, MOPAC has to date supported 16 reviews since 2016. We are increasing our offer of support to local areas this year with further local and strategic reviews, with follow-on operational support available.
Finally, to support delivery of the strategy, the Home Secretary has established a serious violence task force to drive implementation of the strategy and support delivery of its key objectives. This task force brings together Ministers, Members of Parliament, the Mayor of London, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Director-General of the National Crime Agency, other senior police leaders and the public and voluntary sectors’ chief executives. The task force met for the first time on 26 April and discussed the issue of county lines and what more could be done to tackle this issue. The task force also met again this morning to discuss the challenge of serious violence material on social media and again considered what further it could do to support action on this issue.
The multi-strand approach set out in the strategy, with a greater emphasis on early intervention, will address the increases in serious violence and help young people to deliver the skills and resilience to live happy and productive lives away from violence, as well as ensuring that people feel safe in their communities and their homes. I beg to move.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
Does the Minister appreciate that in her remarks she has not mentioned either the role of the family or the importance of parental responsibility? Many people feel that those are at the heart of the matter of youth crime.
Baroness Manzoor
I thank my noble friend for his statement. I recognise that both those factors are an important part. I alluded in my opening speech to the importance of support. However, I recognise that other noble Lords will be speaking today and, in order to keep my speech short, I thought I would include those issues in my concluding remarks.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I do so, however, with a heavy heart. As many in the House will be aware, I speak from the unenviable position of having been widowed because of violent crime. I am a mother of three children—of whom I am really proud—who have no father because of violent crime. As the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, I have spent the past six years travelling around the country listening to and standing up for other victims of this devastating crime.
Overall, crime in this country is falling, but homicide, knife crime, gun crime and robbery are up. Reading about this on what seems to be a daily basis in our newspapers, I am saddened and hurt to see the faces of mothers who are broken-hearted at the death of their sons. We need to do more. Signs that a child is at risk of gang involvement or involvement in youth violence can be identified in children as young as seven. However, no child is born with a knife or a gun in their hand. We must do something in the intervening years before those weapons become essential accessories attached to their hands. They have weapons already—hands and feet. Any strategy must start long before the children have been sucked into gangs and a hostile and violent culture.
If we are going to ask schools, youth services and local authorities to help spot and support these children, then the £40 million committed in the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy is to be welcomed, but I fear it will be a drop in the ocean given the scale of the problem we have to tackle.
The challenge to tackle this issue is obviously for government but it is also for perpetrators. However, let me be clear that when I say perpetrators I do not mean only the children armed with knives or the gang leaders causing terror in our cities but also the middle-class drug users who are funding this wave of violence. City workers who drink their fairtrade coffee out of a reusable cup during the week think nothing of the supply chain of the stuff they snort up their noses at the weekend. In my view, they are as guilty as the moped riders.
We need to change social attitudes and to stem the increase of crack cocaine use. For example, the south-east and eastern England have seen a rise in cocaine users of a fifth in recent years. We also need to understand that the impact of this crime is not just a London problem, nor is it limited to our inner cities.
The franchising of drug supply across our country, called “county lines”, has brought violent crime into provincial towns and villages—indeed, right into the heart of our countryside. It is a symptom of the rotten supply chain of middle-class drug-taking. For example, some of the most rural areas in the country have seen the biggest increase in violent crime. Let us be clear what that means. Let us remember what the consequences of violent crime are. It means more families in Durham, Devon, Cornwall and Cheshire are now missing a loved one or dealing with life-changing events.
The county lines issue is, however, a symptom of a rot that goes far beyond drug use. Why are these children so vulnerable to exploitation? They are getting money that they could not dream of earning waiting tables in cafes, and the attention and respect that they are getting in the home. Never has it been clearer that this must be a whole-government response and a committed response from the enablers—the technology and social media companies.
It will be 11 years in August that I will have been thinking of my husband and my three young daughters. I have travelled around the country. I have been in prisons; I have been in youth offender centres; I have done documentaries and spoken to young children. All of them say, in no matter what circumstances, that they do not feel safe where they live, and they want to talk to somebody without a threat.
That is why I stand here today with a disappointed and a saddened heart because we need to look at positive alternatives, and we need to be more creative. I stand here as well as patron of Warrington youth zone, which will be built next year. What is a youth zone? It is not a youth club—it is a youth zone built with respect for young children, designed by young children, because we are giving them a top-notch building.
Bolton Lads and Girls club is 10 years old, with a better David Lloyd gym than we pay hundreds of pounds for. They get a hot meal; they feel safe; they can have peer mentoring and they get an education. More importantly, they feel they have a future.
I ask the Government to be more creative in what they do. Last Thursday His Royal Highness Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, even spoke about how he was involved in OnSide. He said that it,
“showed me how well we can do this on a scale and a level of ambition”,
that His Royal Highness had never seen before—young people safe in a safe space. It is fully inclusive, culturally empowering and enriching all who come into contact.
That is what we need to create. We need a sustainable programme, and we need something that will give respect to the children; in that way, we will get respect back.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am a patron of St. Giles Trust. It cannot be declared as a business interest, but it is relevant because it is mentioned in the serious crime strategy.
I will talk mainly about police and law enforcement, although I accept that the strategy is more broadly based, and very properly so. This Serious Violence Strategy is well thought through and has much to commend it. It is good to see that the Government have created a strategy rather than just a task force, and by creating a task force to lead the strategy it has created a mechanism for implementing that strategy to achieve the best effect. In the past we have not always seen those two elements together. We sometimes see the strategy; we sometimes need a task force; but seeing them together is a positive development.
I will talk about the causes of violence, concentrating on London, where my most recent experience has been. There are three issues affecting the serious violence rate in London, some of which is covered in the Serious Violence Strategy. Because London is such a significant part of the national picture, I think it is relevant to concentrate on it. The three issues—if I have chance in the time available, I shall speak about a fourth—are: London is getting younger in certain areas; the drugs market, which the strategy refers to; and too many people carrying knives.
London getting younger is contradictory to what is happening in the rest of the country; there are contradictions, too, within London. It is in the north-east of the capital where we are seeing more young people. This is caused by higher birth rates and migration. Research shows us that where there are more young men in society we tend to see an increase in crime generally and an increase in violence in particular. If we look at a heat map of the violence in London during the past 18 months to two years, we see a high correlation between the increase in the number of young men and the increase in the incidence of violence. Should we need any further proof of the gender effect on crime, we know that of the current prison population of 84,000, 80,000 are male, not only indicating a male-female link but confirming that men in general are responsible for committing more serious offences.
There are various options for approaching this challenge. The law enforcement response will mean permanently stationing more officers in those areas where there are younger people, and flexible deployment of specialist squads to help them. However, that challenges the present reduction in police resources, particularly for London. The past few years have seen police numbers in the country drop by around 20,000. In London, we managed to preserve our 32,000 officers by making £600 million of savings and efficiencies, but now even that number is dropping: presently, it is 30,000, with estimates of 27,000 in future years.
I know that someone like me may always be accused of asking for more money for public services, and I will always ask for more money for the police. However, I hold out some hope as to where some of that money may be found. It is not always necessary to find growth; there can be reallocation. First, the Home Office has a transformation fund just for the police service. It started back in 2012 and at that time had only £50 million in it. In the next few years, that will rise to £350 million. The fund’s original aim was to help forces work more efficiently in fighting crime across force borders—which is relevant to the county lines issue highlighted in the report. Its political aim was to do this without creating regional police forces; that is, bigger forces and fewer of them. I am afraid that it has not delivered its aim. Each force is expected to bid for its own money from the fund. This bottom-up strategy has led to multiple small projects with no strategic design or effect. Why not spend more of it on the police?
The apprenticeship levy, which I support, is 1% of the police pay bill. I applaud any attempt to match the apprenticeship standards of Germany, Poland, and Switzerland, but I propose a five-year apprenticeship levy holiday for the police. At the moment, they are recruiting in small numbers and they cannot claim the levy back for police officer training or salaries. I estimate that this takes around £150 million from police funding nationally, with little in return. The combined total of £500 million would pay for around another 10,000 police posts. This could make a significant difference at a time when we need most help.
The second issue is the drugs market. It is clear from the report and from my experience that the increase in the amount of serious violence is linked to drugs crime. The strategy suggests, without proving it, that the increase in supply of cocaine has had two effects. First, as a stimulant, it is more likely to cause violent offending and, secondly, in a bid to create demand, more expansive and aggressive drug gangs have been driven to export their product. While I agree with the analysis of the problem, I am less impressed with the remedy. The county lines phenomenon of big cities supplying rural areas will need more than a co-ordination centre to interrupt it.
Drugs in this country are policed in three tiers. While the supply of skunk cannabis has changed to home-produced in the past few years, controlled drugs are generally imported: 90% of cocaine comes from Colombia, and 90% of heroin from Pakistan and Afghanistan. The international supply route is level 1 and it is the remit of the National Crime Agency to co-ordinate this country’s response to it, working with other countries as well, of course. Drug supply around Britain and across the regions is level 2 and it is the responsibility of the NCA and the 46 individual police forces to interrupt that supply. Level 3 is street dealing. Street dealing has changed over the last few years. It was literally in the street—the client came to the dealer, or to the dealer’s home. That was of great benefit to the police, because lots of people noticed how many people turned up at someone’s house and would let the police know that they suspected drug supply. Now, the drugs are delivered to the client. Noble Lords may have seen a report in the last few weeks stating that it is now apparently quicker to get cocaine than to get a pizza, which I do not think is to anybody’s benefit in any way.
In this strategy, which force is going to interrupt these supply routes? Each force is restricted broadly to its boundaries. There is a very thin layer of regional crime units. The National Crime Agency’s mission is to disrupt this supply, but there are no clear figures on how they are enforcing the law in this vital area. I invite Members of this House to look at the annual report of the National Crime Agency, which I generally support. I fear that it is a number-free zone when it comes to enforcement, drug supply and recovering cash from the people who are making money from this. Of course, the main area we need to target is the money that the drugs generate, yet recovery levels are very low, considering the size of the market from which it is garnered. This attack on criminal assets is not explicitly recommended in the strategy, and I would have expected to see more about it, because it is the underpinning motivation for selling drugs.
Will county lines be targeted by interception of communication warrants and then given the priority they deserve? When intelligence is gathered from those telephone lines, which surveillance units will follow up on the intelligence that is gathered? There is a very thin layer of surveillance out there—more reason, I would argue, for resources to be made more available to the police, particularly at the moment. There is no recommendation in the report that the Crown Prosecution Service should work with the police in dedicated teams. We know from experience that, when we have worked as teams, with the Crown Prosecution Service properly maintaining its independence, we have always had a better outcome in terms of detection and, more importantly, in terms of successful prosecutions through the courts—because lawyers bring a forensic approach to the application of police skills. So, in short, I do not think that the law enforcement part of the strategy is incisive enough. I do not say that law enforcement alone is the answer; I am commenting only on the law enforcement elements of the plan.
I move now to the carrying of knives. Clearly one of the large problems, particularly in London, is that too many people are carrying knives and that too often an argument is turning into a murder or a very serious event. In my time as commissioner, we reduced stop and search very significantly. I cannot blame the present Prime Minister for this, because I believe it was the right thing to do. I took over in London days after the riots of 2011. In the two years preceding the riots, the Met had stopped and searched or accounted 2.6 million people. That is a very large number and a very large proportion of the 8.4 million people who resided then in London. Members will know that obviously not everybody who lives in London will be on the streets and available for stop and search, by age or inclination. Yet even though we reduced stop and search over the succeeding four years by 60%, we arrested more people—rising from 43,000 to 45,000 people—and we saw crime reduce by 20%, including knife crime and violence. I think we now need to increase the amount of stop and search again, but it must be intelligently targeted or its risks will outweigh its benefits.
I believe that the Home Office needs to work together with the police in three areas to improve stop and search. First, it must help produce technological scanning devices to help officers find knives on individuals and in cars. It remains quite a difficult process for officers stopping people on the street. It is quite difficult in airports, but the challenges in the street are greater. Secondly, it must help develop facial recognition software to work on police body-worn cameras, which are increasing in number across the country—in London there are now 23,000 officers with this equipment. That would help officers to know who to stop. Quite often, intelligence is led by whether the person has a vehicle with them. If they have a vehicle, it is the start of identifying who the person is and whether the police should start a search. I am afraid that, if the first words from the officer, usually to a young person, are “Who are you and where do you live?”, it indicates that the intelligence may not be spectacular. They do their best in a very big city and a very complex society, but facial recognition may help, working together with body-worn cameras.
Finally, we can improve the way Crimestoppers works, particularly for young people. The Crimestoppers that we as adults may understand has always worked. It is an idea that came from America—it was brought over by Lord Ashcroft—whereby people can anonymously report who has committed a crime or where stolen goods are, and thousands of people are arrested every year from that. I do not think young people generally know about it—they prefer to use social networking sites to share information. It is not really targeting that group of young people. But my principal point is that research shows that people know who carries a knife; it is not a secret. Their friends and families know, but the question is: will they tell the police, and will the police then act quickly and go and find them in a taxi or the Tube, or wherever they happen to be, and make sure they catch the right person carrying the knife? I genuinely believe that families and friends are terrified of people carrying these knives, but we have to find a way to unlock that intelligence and then for the police to react to it.
I will mention two other things. There is talk in the report about firearms supply, and generally I agree with what it says—but it misses one or two opportunities. There are only a limited number of ways that people can obtain firearms in this country. Clearly, criminals can get hold of them by stealing from legal owners: that is mentioned. There is always a way for registered dealers, as there is in any business, to get hold of gash or extra stock. The general industry is very good—I am not saying that generally it is not—but you have to make sure that the register is controlled and this report mentions that.
There is no talk about military sources. There are two potential sources for the military. Clearly, the military have access to firearms—the same challenge about stock control applies there—and they also return from war zones with a potential for trophies to be returning with them. By working with the military police you can do something about that by bag searchers and various other things that can make a real difference to the supply of illegal firearms. Clearly, there are illegal imports and that is where the Border Agency has to work on the intelligence that is provided.
Finally, there is the control of ammunition. Guns do not work without ammunition. There is very good control of ammunition, but it can sometimes get out of control, and those are areas I would expect to have seen a little more about in the report.
The final thing I will mention is that the way the statistics are presented is very important, because it allows good analysis from which good reports like this can flow. But we are not completely sure about all the statistics in this area. We know that more people have been murdered—that is very clear—but can we say clearly how many people were stabbed? I am afraid the answer is we cannot. What we can say is how many people were wounded—but a wound is not always a stabbing. We can say how many people were arrested for possessing a knife. We can say how many people were involved in a crime that was knife-enabled—for example, where the knife was seen but not used. The critical test is how many people were stabbed.
Five years before I joined the Met, each year 136 people on average were murdered. In the five years that I was there that came down to around 106 murders a year—not an insignificant reduction. Of course, I claim it was because we in the police did some great things—I think we did. But I have to accept that during that period the health service got better, too. What happened is that people were treated on the street, not rushed to hospital. The question we have to be sure about is: are more people getting stabbed or are more people dying? It may be that law enforcement is vital for the reasons that the strategy outlines, but there may be other things that have to be looked at to make sure that the great care that has been provided over the last few years is maintained. The health service is under stress and any best practice, as the police know, can be forgotten and lost.
Those are just some thoughts which I hope may help in the implementation of a strategy that I generally support, and I hope that my comments are not regarded as negative: they are meant to enhance it rather than detract from it.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president and former chairman of the Local Government Association. I welcome the Serious Violence Strategy as it places a significant emphasis on early intervention. This is vital for preventing young people becoming involved in crime in the first place. Over the years, one of the key successes in tackling and preventing crime has been effective local partnerships working between councils, police and the health service. I am particularly pleased to see that the strategy commits to providing funding to continue to support this important multi-agency work. The Serious Violence Taskforce, of which the Local Government Association is a member, has a vital role to play in ensuring that we make progress on the strategy. I hope that we can have an update on the progress made by the new county lines co-ordination centre in raising awareness of county lines issues, particularly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested, more is needed to tackle this problem than a mere co-ordination centre.
As we have heard from other speakers, county lines is an emerging national issue. It involves the exploitation of vulnerable young people and adults by violent gang members in order to move and sell drugs across the country. Nearly every police force in England and Wales has been affected by county lines issues to some degree. The majority of police forces have identified the involvement of vulnerable people, particularly children, in county lines activity. Police forces in England and Wales have identified links between knife and gun crime and county lines activity, as well as with other forms of serious violence. The strategy also highlights that drug-selling gangs are generally more violent than the local dealers who previously controlled the market.
It is clear that this issue affects all our communities. I know that the Local Government Association is holding a conference for local government and its partners to share best practice and experiences. I am also particularly encouraged to see the new county lines awareness-raising campaign led by the Home Office. This includes promotional materials that have been developed to support front-line staff. The campaign highlights the signs to look for in potential victims and what to do about it. Increases in homicide, knife crime and gun crime are a serious concern. There is also concern that younger people are often the victims or perpetrators of these horrendous crimes.
This increase comes at a time when councils are facing significant rises in demand for urgent child protection work. With a children’s services funding gap that will reach almost £2 billion by 2020, councils are increasingly having to divert funding away from preventive work into services to protect children who are at immediate risk of harm. We need to renew our focus on early intervention and prevention. For example, council youth offending teams are key to supporting young people to help prevent them getting involved in crime in the first place. Only with the right funding and powers can councils continue to make a difference to people’s lives by supporting families and young people. This will help tackle serious violent crime in our local communities.
Today’s debate is incredibly timely, given that we have heard that the Serious Violence Taskforce met earlier today. I wish it well in its work and hope to see progress on this and the other important issues being debated this afternoon.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, for introducing this debate. I shall begin by quoting some stark facts from Barnardo’s, which works directly with young people. Barnardo’s is increasingly concerned about the worrying trend of children and young people becoming victims of criminal exploitation. They can be controlled by criminal gangs and forced to carry weapons, carry and trade in drugs, go missing from home and be victims of sexual abuse and exploitation. In a recent survey, almost 60% of Barnardo’s children’s service managers said they believed that they had supported a young person involved in criminal activity over the past year. Approximately 75% of them said they thought the young person had been coerced, deceived or manipulated, and thought they were into criminal activity because of those reasons. We have to remember that most of these young people are already vulnerable. In her excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, mentioned finding creative and positive solutions, and I entirely agree with her. The Barnardo’s figures are shocking and point to the need to examine locally and nationally how we are dealing with and supporting young people and their families, and what we can do better. Therefore the strategy is welcome, with its broad perspective on what might be done and what the solutions might be.
I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, with all her experience of local authorities, might agree with me on the next points that I make. We need to examine the functioning and funding of local safeguarding boards and to ask why schools are not involved in them. We need to look at why there are discrepancies in the quality of authorities’ activities nationally. We need to ensure that social services work well and positively with young people and their families. We need to look at why children are sometimes shunted between care homes, foster care and adoption agencies. We need to look at the influence of social media; this is perhaps a long way from the full force of the law, but I think it needs looking at.
Last November I was involved in a Council of Europe/UK Parliament seminar on child mental health and child-friendly justice with representatives from the police, academics, parents, European MPs and the voluntary sector. I declare an interest here as chair of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly sub-committee on children. Half the participants were young people aged up to 24. One young woman described children and young people as “experts by experience”. These young people have been involved in mental health initiatives and with the law. Their insights were extraordinary, and I hope that in considering any strategy affecting young people the Government will note the importance of involving those young people in proposed interventions. Their voices are important. The concern of the seminar was that mental health was a driver in motivations for many young people. Mental health is the key to self-esteem and resilience—the ability to reject negative influences.
I hope the Government are taking note of the implications of the Green Paper on mental health. I hope there will be genuine dialogue between government departments to tackle both mental health and crime. Such dialogue is of course mentioned in the strategy. I would be interested to know from the Minister if any evaluation of what works has been incorporated into the Serious Violence Strategy. A lot of money is being spent so we should know, eventually, what the outcomes are.
In the European seminar that has also been mentioned today, issues such as counselling in schools, the need for early intervention with children and families, safe houses for children and the training of those dealing with children and young people were considered vital. A report on the seminar has been launched in Strasbourg and will be launched in London in July. I am delighted that the Minister for Public Health and the Minister for Youth Justice will both be attending and speaking. The launch will be led by young people from NGOs committed to listening to young people’s views, and noble Lords are of course invited to attend. I am delighted to see that in the strategy the Government emphasised the importance of,
“partnerships across a number of sectors such as education, health, social services, housing, youth services, and victim services”,
and that,
“tackling serious violence is not a law enforcement issue alone”.
The Government have announced new initiatives such as an early intervention youth fund, a new county lines co-ordination centre and a new round of heroin and crack action areas. Of course any enthusiasm for reducing violent crime is welcome, but I wish that local authorities were not being weakened by a lack of funding and that police services were not being eroded. My brother was in the police force for 33 years, ending up as chief superintendent in Manchester. He always emphasised the importance of having police on the beat, of making local connections and of recruiting and enabling women and men from black and minority-ethnic communities to join the police force. I think he was right.
I wish there were more counsellors and programmes of personal, social and health education in schools. Such programmes encourage communication skills, self-esteem and teamwork among young people. I salute the Government for at last making such programmes mandatory, although there is a long way to go in implementing the initiative successfully. I wish there was not a threat to community services such as libraries. All community initiatives help people bind together and encourage concern about young people in communities. Youth services are desperately needed in communities.
I know that the strategy places drugs as central to serious crime. I ask the Government to look at this very carefully and perhaps do more analysis. Public Health England and the national drug treatment monitoring system have useful figures on this. My impression is that the use of hard drugs such as crack cocaine by young people is actually going down, with a rise in drugs such as cannabis. I should like a dialogue on this. It is very important. We need to know exactly what we are tackling. There are many splendid initiatives which help develop strong individuals and strong communities, such as those from the voluntary sector. Sports groups, such as the Chance to Shine and the Wicketz initiative, funded by the Lord’s Taverners, enable young people in disadvantaged areas to play sport, to work as teams and to develop communication and leadership skills. Sport is a great unifier and can develop self-esteem, involvement and co-operation. Present schemes deserve more attention and guaranteed funding. The police are encouraging groups of young people who have been in trouble with the law to set up initiatives of their own to engage young people in danger of becoming involved in crime and in gangs to think again. I have talked to lots of young people who are doing this good work. They all report excellent results. This is an example of creative thinking. I do not know if there is a list of such initiatives nationally. Is there? If so, there could be a survey of what works in engaging positively with young people.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to the rest of the debate, and in particular to comments on the involvement of young people, and on gathering information on what works to enable learning and the sharing of good practice in this important area of addressing serious violence.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy and the opportunity to debate it. Importantly, the strategy commits to tackling the deeply troubling trends which the Minister and others have outlined, by establishing a new balance between prevention and law enforcement. However, it will be greatly hampered in its effectiveness by the lack of an equally—if not even more necessary—strategy to address the veritable tsunami of family breakdown that has engulfed many of our communities. This has direct links to the violence, as I will make clear.
As the Centre for Social Justice, which has helped me with data for this speech, has repeatedly emphasised, we have one of the highest rates of family breakdown in the OECD. Just two-thirds of all children aged between 0 and 14 years live with both their birth parents. According to the Office for National Statistics, a quarter of families in the UK are headed by a lone parent, and 86% of these are headed by mothers. Some 2.7 million children have no father figure at home; more than 1 million children have little or no contact with their birth father, and 15% of the UK’s children grow up without a resident father.
The Serious Violence Strategy does hint at an understanding of these issues by euphemistically referring to “disrupted family environments” and describing the need for parents of troubled young people to be taught,
“strategies for improving the quality of their interactions with their child, reducing negative child behaviour and increasing their efficacy and confidence in parenting”.
Yet there is no recognition that often the parents in question are women on their own raising violent and out-of-control sons, who have far superior physical strength, with the fathers long gone. We are so frightened of appearing to be critical of lone parents that we forget what a difficult and gruelling job it is to do single-handedly. Many did not choose it as a lifestyle, do not enjoy it and certainly do not want their children to repeat the cycle.
Moreover, although the strategy treats family socioeconomic status as a risk factor, it does not fully reflect the evidence linking fatherlessness with criminal and gang activity. Fatherlessness is a well-documented risk factor for offending, and the risk factors for gang involvement are similar to those for offending. While, of course, not all serious violence is perpetrated by gangs, it should not be forgotten that, for a significant group of young people growing up in our most deprived communities, the gang has become a substitute family, with the gang leader as the father: 17 year-old André, who used to be gang-involved, told the Centre for Social Justice, “You can go out and be in that crew and have a family”.
Let me outline some of the characteristics of many boys growing up with physically or emotionally absent fathers. The rejection and inadequacy they feel as a result of growing up in a fatherless household is often internalised, creating resentment and anger. The absence of positive role models of masculinity leaves them with little choice but to learn what it is to be a man from traditional alpha male imagery, and this makes them vulnerable to being groomed for violence and susceptible to exploitation.
In consequence, what might be termed our national father deficit is a driver for criminal and gang activity: 25% of young offenders are already fathers themselves; only 30% of young offenders come from intact families; and boys with little or no involvement with their fathers are twice as likely to become offenders compared to boys with highly involved fathers.
The UK National Survey of Health and Development found that 27% of boys who had experienced separation or divorce had been cautioned or convicted by age 21, compared to 14% of those who had not experienced family breakdown. The Newcastle Thousand Family Study showed that the likelihood of a male being convicted up to age 32 doubles if he has experienced divorce or separation before age five. Drilling down to an individual case which is by no means unusual, an Islington borough police evaluation of one particular London gang murder found that of the 13 young people initially suspected of involvement in the killing, 12 were from lone-parent homes.
My recent review on the importance of family ties to prevent reoffending and the transmission of intergenerational crime in prison has found that two thirds of prisoners’ sons go on to offend. It is obvious that not all fathers—and not all mothers—have a good influence on their children. This is partly to do with the fact that those who grow up without a present father experience other disadvantages that can lead to or increase the risks of criminal behaviour.
Compared to children in two-parent families, children in one-parent families are significantly more likely to smoke, drink and take drugs weekly. Children from low-income households who have an active father figure at home are 25% more likely to escape the poverty they grow up in. According to a 2017 Oxford University study, where there is an active father pre-teen, children are up to 28% less likely to suffer behavioural problems.
When the Serious Violence Strategy was debated recently in the other place, the right honourable Sir Desmond Swayne disagreed with higher police numbers being the solution, saying:
“We would have to swamp the streets with policemen; there would have to be policemen available at every violent incident for it to make that form of difference. We would be back to Cromwell saying, “If I arm one in 10 will that be enough?” Of much more significance in terms of the propensity to violence is the lack of attention to the question of young people—particularly very young people—and parenting. That is where the Government’s efforts must be directed”. —[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/18; col. 739.]
Across the Floor in the other place, the Labour Member, Vicky Foxcroft, stressed:
“We need to start far, far earlier, working with families from birth by providing support such as Sure Start, which works with a child and their family from a pre-school age”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/18; col. 771.]
The Serious Violence Strategy mentions that police forces in Wales are giving attention to adverse childhood experiences, and the public health approach to serious violence in Scotland also aims to prevent these ACEs. England might have a little catching up to do here, although crime policy in the devolved Greater Manchester authority is also very ACE-aware. It should be noted that parental separation is also a recognised ACE—adverse childhood experience—but I have not heard about any policies north or west of the border to try to prevent this.
The Serious Violence Strategy did not agree that interventions aimed at pre-school children had the best results and said that some of the most successful programmes were aimed at slightly older children—those who had already offended or shown signs of anti-social behaviour. I passionately believe that every child needs the best possible start in life but the wheels can fall off the family wagon when children are older than five, the age at which much parenting support that is based in Sure Start ceases to be available.
That is why I have been pressing the Government to encourage the evolution of family hubs, often from—and continuing the early years work of—existing Sure Start children’s centres. Councils such as the Isle of Wight, Essex and Westminster are finding that they can reduce disadvantage and dysfunction for all their families by integrating a full range of help, including their troubled families programme, into these community settings. They are somewhere parents can go where someone will have the answers.
The need for family hubs is one of the recommendations of the manifesto to strengthen families that I have talked about before in your Lordships’ House. It also recommends that the Government bring into force Schedule 6 to the Welfare Reform Act 2010 which would make it mandatory for fathers to be named on birth certificates, with all sensible safeguards. There are over 247,000 children under seven in the UK who had no registered father at birth, and every year, one in 20 children is born with no registered father. The manifesto also recommended moving birth registration into children’s centres and family hubs, so that both mothers and fathers can see from the outset what kind of support would be there for them if they need it.
Finally, but most instrumentally, the manifesto calls for a Cabinet-level family Minister in government. He or she would have the clout of a big department, such as the Home Office or even possibly defence, and would, like the Equalities Minister, have additional responsibility for driving policies to improve family stability and family functioning in every department of government. At the recent reshuffle, a Minister for Loneliness was appointed, yet various academics who have looked at statistics from studies going back to the 1940s, dispute claims that there is an epidemic of loneliness in contrast with the past. Professor Barreto, of Exeter University, quoted in the Times last week, said:
“Perhaps what we see is an epidemic of understanding, of interest in loneliness and an urge to try and understand what can be done about it. But we aren’t more lonely than before”.
Since studies began the prevalence of loneliness has hardly changed. The same thing simply cannot be said about the prevalence of family breakdown.
Can the Minister provide an update please on the progress in these three areas: holding men’s feet to the fire when they father a child, through mandatory birth registration; moving this process into places which could help put parents on to a good path from the outset; and giving a senior Cabinet Member overarching responsibility for developing and implementing a strategy to address the genuine epidemic of fractured and dysfunctional families? Support for family relationships, whether between parent and child or between parents themselves, cannot be rejected on the grounds that it is too intrusive for the state to be involved. The Government warn parents about the consequences of overconsumption of sugar, salt, screens, smoking and drinking. Warning them about the long-term personal and societal outcomes of poor parenting and fractured families and putting tools into their hands to enable them to be the good mothers and fathers who most long to be is not the nanny state, but the canny state.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking on the important and inclusive report and discussion from the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. She has got everything in there, absolutely everything. The noble Baroness has even included the roots, so we have to go to the roots; we have to solve the problems. We cannot just keep dealing in arithmetic or with the manifestation or effects; we have to get to the cause.
I commend the Government for saying such wonderful things, but I would like to know where the word “austerity” comes in, because I think that is the only term left out. We cut the youth offending team bill by 50% since 2010, and you think whether that brings us any nearer the solution. Is it necessary to cut money and take 20,000 policemen off our streets? Is that a strategy for improving the chances of us not having so many of our children murdered? Does cutting the YOTs add to our chances of getting nearer to Valhalla, when we will have the chance of enjoying our children knowing they are all out there, doing very well, prospering and having an incredibly long life?
That is the problem with this discussion, because we always leave out money, when it should be brought forward and talked about—the arithmetic of the capital that you put in and the returns from that capital, the social capital of investing. For instance, there is the bizarre situation where we fail 38% of our children at school and yet wonder why a decisive amount of those who fall into crime come from this failed group of people. According to some of the organisations that work there, 80% of the people who fill our prisons come from a failure at school. If you were to ask those children who were carrying and running drugs, and sticking their knives into other people, how they did at school, I bet you a pound to a penny they would say, “Not very well at all”.
It is interesting that we talk about wanting to sort out the tree by getting down to the roots. The roots all go back to poverty, unfortunately. There is no other major reason why we have crime on our streets, murders, gangs and young people who are prepared to move drugs around the country than this shortage of resources way down the line.
I will talk about who this person is. Imagine there is one person who ends up sticking a knife in somebody, dealing in drugs or even becoming a victim. If you look at that person, you will see that it is someone who comes from need and, often, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has pointed out to us, comes from a broken home—but that person will come from a family which was probably uneducated after the Second World War. In 1948, we had that wonderful thing called the welfare state, invented in a very strange sort of way, as well as a pretty good way. They creamed off the 11% so that they could run the system and become the managers, and then they created the secondary modern school system, which actually created a curriculum or pedagogy to produce people who did unskilled and semi-skilled work. If you look at those children who are now involved in crime, I bet that their fathers or grandfathers come from that cohort of undereducated people, where the state educated people for jobs that were seriously disappearing.
As Margaret Thatcher proved, when she broke the link with government support and removed all the subsidies for the major industries, what you need to do is to move forward with the times and close down the old industries. What happened was that an enormous number of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs disappeared, and we started to grow an underclass of people who moved from one generation to another generation and who themselves were blasted in the kind of culture that they were given.
I know many of those people—I come from them—and there was a person whose family I grew up with who imported the largest amount of cocaine into this country. I know why he did it—he was a criminal—but I also know that he was dyslexic and a person who, when he went to the North Thames Gas Board to get a job, was not given one because he could not read the meters. I know that there were precious few forms of skills that he could tap into, because he had been to a comprehensive school that did not recognise him as someone with enormous organisational skills who should be given the job of running the Bank of England.
I know all sorts of other things. If you actually look at the culture and social profile of most of these young children who are being murdered or are murdering people and running drugs, I am sorry to say that very rarely do they come from the comfortable classes; they come from the discomforted classes, the people who have been short-changed on the kind of education that they desperately need. Until this Government, the next Government or the Government after that really get behind the idea of skilling up the neediest among us, we will be talking about crime, inventing YOTs and JOPs and ROPs and all sorts of other things. We will be talking about cutting police officer numbers or putting on more—we will be doing all those sorts of things, but we will not be addressing the major thing until we hit poverty. That may mean that this or the next Government have to step back and ask what this ecosystem of failure is that we keep repeating and talking about; we keep coming up with solutions, but they never configure.
It is interesting what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said—that you can go to the marketplace and buy cocaine quicker than you can buy a pizza. There is another element, is there not? What is happening is the commercialisation of all the sensations that you can pick up, and this is a lot to do with how we train and educate our children. We have to break people from that kind of stimulus and that kind of world where they take any kind of placebo to hide the fact that their lives are ill formed, unadventurous and unexciting.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the strategy and the Minister’s introduction. I read through the strategy a couple of times and found it higher on analysis than on solutions. It had a pretty good analysis of where the problems are, but I am not sure that it really came to grips with the solutions.
First, we seem to be imagining that somehow crime is completely out of hand. In fact, Britain has become a safer place over the last 30 or 40 years. What we do have, however, is a problem over the last short period of time. I was struck, for instance, by the assertion in the report that, with respect to assaults with a sharp object,
“since 2012/13, the number of episodes involving individuals aged under 18 has increased by 51%”.
The numbers, however, are from 313 to 473. This is not 51% of many thousands to many more thousands. It is a problem, but we need to remember the numbers as well as the percentages. Similarly, homicide rates are up 20% for 18 to 24 year-olds and 26% for the 25 to 29 age group. Clearly, as you get older, you are more likely to murder people than stab them, according to the report. Again, we need to look at the numbers: the numbers are serious—particularly for those who are affected—but we are not living in Colombia. We are living in a society that clearly has problems. The report states on page 25, in respect of age and criminality:
“Underlying this pattern is strong evidence that crime trends tend to be driven by a small proportion of highly prolific individuals whose criminal career tends to decrease via a lengthy ‘ageing out’ process”.
I was entertained by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I was educated to an extent, but as the product of a secondary modern school myself I cannot agree that everybody who went to a secondary modern school was necessarily disadvantaged at all. In fact, I cannot remember anyone in our class at school who went to the juvenile court or anywhere else. Perhaps it was an exceptional class. Sometimes, when I sit on this side of the House and wonder why I am here, I realise that it is because of reports like this—I am not much good as a liberal in terms of thoughts.
A lot of people have to be responsible for their own actions. Many years ago, I was the research director for the Committee on One Parent Families, known as the Finer committee. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has already alluded to the importance of family, particularly a structured family and a two-parent family. We have become almost shy about mentioning it; it is almost as though we are worried that we should not mention anything that might offend anyone at all. The fact of the matter is that the statistics show that a stable, two-parent family is a very good indicator of a stable life and a useful future.
My daughter has mild dyslexia. She is now working, and has worked every day since she left university. She got to university thanks to very good teaching. She is one of those people who had an exceptionally good teacher who taught her to cope, and now she is doing a valuable job. Many people overcome disadvantage. I do not intend to delay the House with personal sob stories, but I grew up in a children’s home. That is also seen in many ways as a disadvantage, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage. You can get over things and you can fight your way forward.
One of the things we saw in the Finer committee report, which is now many years out of date, was how many one-parent families actually won through. The great majority of them won through—not only the fatherless families but the motherless ones: the number of men who managed to bring up children, do a job and get through. I am not saying that people do not need help. Indeed, one of the things that report showed was the need for financial assistance and one-parent family benefits. However, that is part of the package, not the whole package.
I move on to social media. I point out that when the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who is not in his place, advocated a tough approach with those who were caught being given tough sentences, he was not necessarily that far out. Look at the quote about,
“via a lengthy ‘ageing out’ process”;
people who are doing their lengthy ageing out behind bars are not causing as much trouble as those who are, let us say, running around.
I want to look at the social media quotes in the report. On page 31 it says:
“There is strong evidence that rival gangs are using social media to promote gang culture, taunt each other and incite violence. Some gang members have thousands of followers … Social media also offers a method for promoting drug selling activity and recruiting others into the lifestyle … One of the most common things for drug-related groups to do on social media is to post pictures of themselves surrounded by money purportedly made from selling drugs”.
That is not poverty, is it?
On the online sale of knives, test purchases in 2008 and 2009,
“showed that 80% of the retailers sampled … would sell to a person under 18”.
By 2014, it was still 70%, and in 2016 it was 72%. Another quote is:
“Every time an online test purchase operation is undertaken, the large majority of online retailers tested break the law on sales of knives”.
But what do the Government say about it? They say:
“We are planning to introduce new legislation to take additional steps to prevent online retailers selling knives to young people under 18 years old”.
Why not just ban the sale of knives online? Surely that is the answer. It is not about saying, “Take new powers”, which almost certainly will not work. You can ban them. We can take the online adverts under control. We should look at stopping selling knives in shops where there is a problem. We should at least make it as difficult as buying alcohol, and not only have test purchases but make it obligatory for people to check the age of people buying knives. I would not be averse to putting the age limit up to 25, let alone 18, before people can buy a knife. In other words, we need to be a bit tougher.
On page 80, the report says:
“The Home Office will provide a fund for two years to support targeted prosecution activity against online and in store retailers in breach of the laws in relation to the underage sales of knives”.
Why does not the Home Office set up its own dedicated unit to do the job? Why is it setting up a fund that, presumably, people will have to apply for, and which presumably will be a big bureaucracy? It is online—it is not impinging on anyone’s territory. The Home Office itself could set up a dedicated unit and do this job.
Finally, I will say one or two things about the police—I was interested in the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. In the preamble, written by the former Home Secretary, she says that the,
“Police and Crime Commissioners have a pivotal role to play”.
Nothing the Government and their predecessor have done has been more of a disappointment than the introduction of police and crime commissioners. One only has to look at Wiltshire to see how totally useless they are, and to put them into the foreword is an abuse of the foreword itself. I would like to see the police going back to doing a bit more policing.
I saw in one of my weekend newspapers that the police are looking at the possibility of setting up a unit to look at the Jeremy Thorpe case. Jeremy Thorpe has died, sadly. I do not think he was quite the rogue that his current reputation gives him. If he was, he was a fairly loveable rogue. But he has died and he was found not guilty by a jury. That really should be the end of the matter. If we have enough police to set up dedicated teams, it is a waste of police resources. I am afraid, in my view, the police are just a little too fond of undertaking fishing expeditions, and it is about time they got down to doing the job they are paid for.
As a starting point, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to recruit a full-time security service for this building. That would free up dozens of policemen to go back on to the beat to do their job, and a dedicated security force for this building would be much more able to be integrated with the other functions in this building. I do not know about other noble Lords, but the number of times that the front desk downstairs with our attendants on has failed to get a message registered in the police box, which is about 20 yards away, is a little too many. So I would like to see a few more of them on the beat and not doing an easily replaceable job around this House.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister for allowing us to air our views in this debate, but I think we have to remember the central role of families and society in tackling violence.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Manzoor for bringing this important debate to the House today, and those who contributed to the strategy in its formative stages.
Living in London as I do, it seems to me that violent crime is steadily on the rise. Every day we read new stories about violent muggings, assaults and even murders in the capital. For a time some months ago, the murder rate in London exceeded that in New York—a day I never thought I would see. This is not to be churlish. As the report notes, violence with injury in the year ending September 2017 was 40% lower than in the year ending June 2010 and 76% lower than its peak in 1995.
But we must always strive for the most peaceful and harmonious society we can, and it is worrying to note that some types of violent crime have recorded increases since late 2014. These concerning trends ought not to be viewed in isolation. As with all breakdowns in social behaviour, context matters and violent crime is no exception. I therefore welcome the approach set out by the previous Home Secretary and her successor, to work in partnership with other bodies in the public, private and voluntary spheres.
I have often called for government strategies and task forces to take a joined-up approach across departments, and I think this is one such policy area. I welcome the idea of setting up a serious violence task force to oversee delivery, with delegates from a wide array of stakeholders, but I fear that it may just become something of a talking shop. It will have no statutory duties and little power to hold Ministers to account, being chaired by the Home Office and reporting to a ministerial committee.
An additional layer of accountability would be useful for a strategy like this, but it is a Home Office strategy being scrutinised by a Home Office-chaired panel. In effect, the department will be marking its own homework, which I do not think is appropriate for a problem of this magnitude. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the proposed chairing arrangements for the task force? It would be far better if the chair were some sort of retired judicial figure or an impartial technocrat.
My second point has to do with the roots of the issue. Nobody wishes to see hard and damaging drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine being sold on our streets, but the evidence is strongly in favour of the legalisation of cannabis for sale. I am a fiscal conservative and believe in sound money. For me, one of the biggest draws of legalisation would be the vast sums of additional tax revenue that we would receive—a point made in a recent report by HPA, which estimates that between £1 billion and £3.5 billion could be raised. Legalisation would also take away an enormous incentive from criminal gangs to continue their violent business.
The fact that cannabis cannot be legitimately bought or sold pushes it beyond the realm of open trade, meaning that its sale is untaxed, unmonitored and uncontrolled. Teenagers out in the street could be buying anything, with no quality checks or fair trading practices to protect them. Fundamentally, cannabis will be purchased by Brits for recreational use, and it is up to the Government to choose how they react to that reality. The new Home Secretary has signalled that he is more liberal than maybe some of his predecessors were. I hope that he can live up to that promise in office. This would be an excellent place to start.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Brent Centre for Young People, a mental health service for adolescents which works in the youth justice system and in various other services. I am also involved in the Michael Sieff Foundation, a child welfare organisation with a long history of working around the youth and criminal justice system.
I join your Lordships in thanking the noble Baroness for introducing this strategy and for giving us the opportunity to debate it today. It seems to me that the strategy is a complex answer to a complex problem, and we really need to avoid seeing it as a simple problem with a simple solution. That is what I most welcome about the strategy.
I listened with the greatest interest to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She has great personal experience and is a champion and campaigner in this area. It is tragic to think of the lives that have been lost to these crimes. While listening to her, I particularly remembered Damilola Taylor, the young boy in Peckham who seemed to have a life of promise in front of him. He was wounded in the leg and lost his life as a result, and I remember the grief of his family. The risk is that you become so emotional about these things that you do not think in making a response but, rather, have an emotional reaction, and I welcome the thoughtfulness of the Government’s response.
In listening to the debate, I have been thinking about the complexity and the various experiences of your Lordships, and I see what I think is a general reflection on our politics. I might be quite wrong about this and am probably overstretching myself, but my reflection is that somehow politics in this country does not rise to the challenges posed by an increasingly complex country; instead—laying no responsibility with any particular party—it tends to produce rather simple answers to complex questions.
In March last year I visited Germany, for the first time in many years, with a parliamentary group and I was impressed by what was going on in the Bundestag. I was most impressed by the fact that on Sundays shops still do not open and that businesses are not allowed to send emails to their employees after 8 o’clock at night. It is still the custom that you stop working at six and if you are working after six you are being inefficient. The Germans have balance in their lives. They can spend time with their families, children and friends, if they wish to, or do other things. We somehow have lost our way and have become unbalanced.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for the wonderful work he is doing in championing and supporting families. The statistics in the OECD report of 2011 on family formation showed that at that time 15% of German children were growing up without a father in the home; we were 20% or 21%, and the United States 25%. The troubling prediction in that thorough report was that we were set to outstrip the United States in terms of children growing up without a father in the home by a significant degree over the next two decades.
This is an important issue. It is not about blaming families but about supporting couples and families to stay together in every way we can. We have heard about many of the ways in which we can support families to stay together. In my own family experience, when I wonder what is the right thing to do next, I often think about what my father would do, and that gives me the direction in which to go. Often when I do wrong it is because I do not remember the good example set by my father. My sister was absolutely besotted with my father; he was hugely important to her. We have spoken a great deal about boys growing up without fathers but it is important that many girls are growing up without fathers. Part of the reason for the sexual exploitation of vulnerable teenagers is that many of these young women have not grown up with a positive man in their lives, and that big gap may be filled by unpleasant characters who wish to exploit them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, referred to the training of social workers. I was pleased to see in the welcome report on children’s homes by Martin Narey, the former chief executive of Barnardo’s, a recommendation that social workers should have a mandatory placement in a children’s home as part of their training. Children’s homes are wonderful places to learn about working with troubled and troubling adolescents. I could not agree more with him and I hope that that particular recommendation of his report is implemented.
I welcome the fact that the Government have talked about a criminal justice response and the many other responses that need to be made. There needs to be a criminal justice response. About 18 years ago there was an outcry about the level of mobile phone thefts. Something had to be done and sanctions were toughened. One of the victims of this was a troubled young man called Joseph Scholes, who was a self-harmer. On his first day at a children’s home he was drawn into a crowd of young people, one of whom perpetrated mobile phone thefts and Joseph Scholes was drawn into this. We have to be tough on these people but, in the course of the trial, the prosecutor said that at no time was Joseph Scholes a physical threat to anyone. However, he was imprisoned. There was a shortage of suitable places so he was placed in an inappropriate setting—and he took his life at the age of 16. In an article in the Daily Telegraph in 2012, his mother described him as being in a strip cell. I think he had been self-harming. He was considered a suicide risk so was placed in a strip cell in a horse blanket. He was not properly supervised and he took his own life.
If we overreact, we draw in children and young people who are not a risk and should not end up in the criminal justice system. We can act effectively and pre-emptively to help young people who well might end up in the criminal justice system avoid that route. Once they arrive in it, two-thirds of them will offend again. They are just likely to learn to be better criminals. Thankfully the number of children in custody has been very much reduced over the last period, from 3,000 to below 1,000 currently. There are very tough and challenging young people there, so I welcome the fact that there is a criminal justice response but there are other areas to cover.
I do not wish to speak for too long. I welcome the fact that the Government have talked about youth work in their reaction. Redthread is catching young people when they are in hospital with an injury relating to knife crime and getting a youth worker to speak to them. Again, my reflection on this, going back to what I was saying at the beginning, is that there is a need for a more strategic and stable culture of politics. Youth work has alternately had great resources pumped into it, then been starved of resources, then been pumped with resources, then been starved of resources. This does not create a great profession which can consistently do the outstanding work that is necessary for young people.
I am not blaming any party. I am just saying, “Is this system working for us? Is this system working for the nation?” If you look at Germany, perhaps you can see a system which is more stable and has more continuity. If you look at Angela Merkel or previous Chancellors, they have been in their posts for a long while. Look at the way they make compromises; I know that coalition is unpopular. Negotiation and compromise are unpopular, but they seem to give better outcomes. The last coalition, between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, was very unpopular, but it seemed to give some very good results—on mental health, for instance. Of course, in Germany coalition is the norm. Again, it is deeply unpopular, but the proof of the pudding seems to be in Germany’s economy and a social system where the social contract is still strong.
I do not want to stray too much, but there is a statutory duty on local authorities to provide youth work services. It is a very weak duty so, when they are starved of funds, as they have been, they will tend to invest in other areas. I would appreciate the Minister’s looking at the statutory duty on local authorities to provide youth services and thinking whether that might be strengthened so that we can have consistently high-quality intervention from youth services. Perhaps she has time to meet me to discuss youth work and what we can do to ensure that in the future it grows more professional and more effective. As fathers are not as involved in their children’s lives as they were, youth workers become more important.
As I said earlier, I am a trustee of the Brent Centre for Young People. I shall give an example of the really effective interventions that can be made. I visited its Sport and Thought intervention in a local primary school and watched the boys playing football, supervised by a child and adolescent psychotherapist. He is a very highly qualified expert in child development. Sport and Thought—these boys do not think. They act, on any impulse that comes to them. You can use football to enable them to say, if they are getting into a scuffle, “Stop. What is going on here? Think about what you are doing”.
The subject is much more complex than that, but what struck me is hearing the teacher, who is the main beneficiary of this. She was struggling to manage with these boys, and I heard the gratitude coming from her at this intervention that made them manageable, that helped them to learn and helped the rest of the class to learn. We can invest in such interventions. For instance, I welcome the money that government have put into the troubled families initiative. It would be good to hear from the Minister that that will continue to be funded past 2020. I am afraid that cuts in funding to local authorities in recent years have been so extreme that, despite such welcome initiatives, children’s centres and other early interventions that could help struggling families and help parents stay together have been removed.
I am sorry to have spoken so long. I welcome this government strategy. The problem is complex and the answer needs to be complex. I am grateful for the Government’s approach. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cormack (Con)
The noble Earl has ranged far and wide. He talked fondly of his late father, whom I remember well. He was a member of Attlee’s Government, one of the seminal Governments of this country. Indeed, I believe that I am right in saying that he was the last Secretary of State for India—but I must not be tempted.
One thing to have come through in this debate has been the reiteration—it began with an intervention from my noble friend Lord Framlingham, who is not in his place now—of the importance of the family. This was brought home to me last week. Many of your Lordships may have heard in a news item anxiety being expressed at the number of young children in primary schools who knew nothing about basic hygiene. I intervened on a Question last week to urge my noble friend who has the education brief in your Lordships’ House to do more about the education of parents and for parenthood. It is clear that most of the problems which lie at the root of today’s debate occur because children have not been brought up in a stable home with parents devoted to their welfare, anxious to teach them the difference between right and wrong, cleanliness and filth, and all the things that we used to take for granted.
As my noble friend Lord Balfe mentioned, the strategy to which my noble friend the Minister spoke is a little turgid. It is long on analysis and a little short on solutions.
We can solve the problems troubling your Lordships’ House in this debate and on many other occasions only in schools and in prisons. We have to realise that many young people who are sentenced, often quite rightly, to terms in prison and young offender institutions have the most appalling backgrounds. I had such an institution in my former constituency in South Staffordshire, a place called Brinsford. I remember going there one day after there had been a fairly monumental riot; the place had been smashed up. Incidentally, a brilliant report on that prison was delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he was the Chief Inspector of Prisons—and what a brilliant inspector he was. That report had a very salutary effect and the institution improved considerably. Going round and talking to those young men was a distressing experience. I could not honestly look at myself in the mirror and not say, if I had had their background, there but for the grace of God. It applies to all of us.
We must try to ensure that we do not stint on the resources going into the prison system, because prison must be the place where people are rehabilitated, and that applies most of all to young people. We must be able to give them a sense of self-worth, aspiration and hope. If we cannot do that we just create a sink generation. There is not enough emphasis on that in the strategy document we are talking about.
Of course, we should do everything possible to keep people out of prison. When I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place, I saw the dramatic effect of community restorative justice. If you can keep people out of prison and make them atone for their crimes and shortcomings without risking the contamination that frequently occurs in a prison, you are doing a great deal. I would like to see emphasis on that.
My final point is about schools. I hope noble Lords who have heard me refer to this before will forgive me if I refer to it again. I believe that we need to educate our young people as proper citizens of this country. I want to see an emphasis on citizenship. That does not just mean teaching young people about the way Parliament and local government works; it means trying to make them realise that no society can work unless they play a constructive and, indeed, aspirational part in it. I had the privilege a couple of years or so ago of going to the Terrace in your Lordships’ House when there was a citizenship ceremony for those who were receiving British citizenship. The sense of pride among those people of all ages, backgrounds, nationalities and ethnicities was palpable. They were dressed in their best; they had their wives, husbands or companions with them; they were going to celebrate afterwards; it was a moving ceremony.
I would like every young person in this country leaving school to go through a citizenship ceremony. They should be prepared for it. They should all do some community service. Whether that is reading to the blind, visiting the old, helping the sick or going on a National Trust conservation programme does not matter, but it should be community service of a sort that is worth while, challenging and through which they can actually achieve something. They should also be taught properly about our country’s history and its system—the preciousness of democracy—and at the end of the day they should receive a certificate.
I have suggested, when I have mentioned this before, that to take this out of the realm of party politics this should not be done by the local authority but through the lieutenancy. I think we all respect the lieutenancy. The lord-lieutenant, the deputy, the vice lord-lieutenant and the deputies, all of them—I speak as a DL myself, although now on the retired list—could play a part in this. If young people aspired to it and were taught how important it was to aspire to it, it would help. It might just persuade some of those who are now seduced into joining gangs or tempted by the false romanticism of weapons; it might just help a bit. We must make our prisons clean, rehabilitative places with no drugs, no violence. It is not a punishment while you are there; the punishment is being sent there and you are rehabilitated while you are there.
If we can try to inculcate a sense of pride in nation and community in our schools, fewer people will go to prison. That is the way we should seek to tackle this and I hope that any developed strategy for dealing with violent crime will bear in mind some of these things, but also bear in mind that there is no substitute in human life for the family unit. I was deeply disturbed last week when I read that a very senior judge had said that the day of the nuclear family was over—what an utterly irresponsible, reprehensible and silly thing to say.
Lord Cormack
My noble friend interjects to say that the judge was president of the Family Division. I must not criticise the judiciary on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, but all I say is that it is a pity that we do not have the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, doing that job, as she did so brilliantly for so long.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting if relatively short debate considering its breadth. It is sad that more Peers did not participate in this important debate, considering how serious the issues are. Before I start I will pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for her courage and her efforts to stand up for victims of crime. I cannot imagine what she has been through, but the noble Baroness has always conducted herself with great dignity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, observed, almost all serious violence is perpetrated by men against women and girls—much of it within relationships and much of it fuelled by alcohol. Violence against women and girls and domestic violence remain major contributors to the problem of serious violence and we must not lose focus on these important areas. But that is not where the increase in serious violence is occurring at the moment. We are seeing an epidemic of violence on our streets, as the Minister said in her opening. Homicides, knife crime and gun crime have all been increasing since 2014—not just police-recorded crime but hospital data. Hospital admissions for stab injuries are up by 18%; recorded firearms offences are up by 31%; homicides are up by 18%; and 21% of robberies now involve a knife. This is both serious and urgent—unlike the Government’s response.
It is interesting to note that the homicide rate changes are reflected globally, decreasing between 2008 and 2014 and then increasing between 2014 and 2016. The same is true in some countries in relation to robbery. Something serious is missing from this strategy. It is an acknowledgement that an erosion of trust might be driving this violence. With Brexit, Trump, Grenfell, Windrush and #MeToo there are plenty of reasons for people to distrust the Government and their fellow citizens.
The world today feels to many unfair and unstable, and its future looks uncertain. Some studies have shown that violence correlates inversely with public faith in government and trust in the elected officials. My extensive police experience tells me that, if people feel society is unfair, they are less inclined to play by the rules. People are angry, social media has fanned the flames, and angry people are prone to violence. Will the Minister comment on this omission?
The Government say much of the violence is being driven by the misuse of drugs, and they are right. Criminals have no legal way of enforcing their deals, protecting their territory or disciplining their workforce, so they resort to guns and knives. The strategy claims that the Government’s approach to dealing with drug misuse is succeeding, yet more young people are using cannabis and dealing in class A drugs. As other noble Lords have said, there is a cocaine epidemic in the UK, with increased use of crack cocaine, a drug closely associated with serious violence. The higher purity levels in cocaine seized by the police is a sure sign of the increased availability of that drug in the UK. As we have heard, county lines are exploiting young people.
There were 3,744 drug poisoning deaths involving both legal and illegal drugs in the UK in 2016, 70 higher than in 2015 and the highest number since comparable statistics began in 1993. Scotland has the EU’s highest rate of drug-related deaths, double that of 10 years ago. The number of opiate-using clients in rehabilitation has fallen by 14% over the past seven years and recovery rates are falling. Can the Minister explain how the Government can maintain that their drugs strategy is working against the background of such statistics?
New psychoactive substances—“legal highs” as they were known—were developed to replace drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act because they were illegal and legal highs were not. The new psychoactive substances have proved to be more dangerous and more likely to result in violence and psychosis, yet personal possession of these substances is not an offence. The police cannot stop and search for possession of new psychoactive substances. In short, the whole legislative framework around drug misuse is confused and is creating more harm, more deaths and more violence. We will continue to campaign to take drugs out of the hands of criminals, to adopt a harm-reduction, health-based approach, and to legalise and regulate cannabis to control its potency and to keep it out of the hands of children and young people.
It is not just the Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Suri, who are saying that. In an editorial last month, the British Medical Journal said that it was firmly behind efforts to legalise, regulate and tax the sale of drugs for recreational and medicinal use. In April, the Royal College of Physicians took the important step of coming out in favour of decriminalisation, joining the BMA, the Faculty of Public Health and the Royal Society for Public Health in supporting drug-policy reform. In Portugal, where non-violent possession of drugs has been decriminalised, consumption has not increased but drug-related deaths have fallen considerably. In the Netherlands, the USA and Canada, regulated markets for the sale of cannabis generate substantial tax revenues. Can the Minister explain the downsides to this approach?
Sadly, I am not as positive as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the Serious Violence Strategy. It may be 112 pages but it is thin on content. As the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack, said, the analysis is good but effective answers are lacking. I think it was Mintzberg who said that strategy was little more than post-event rationalisation—and I think this is Mintzberg’s sort of strategy. Where are the action plans? Where are the smart objectives and milestones? Where are the measures of success? I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Suri, about the task force.
Despite the fact, highlighted in the strategy, that each incident of violence is estimated to have an economic and social cost of £13,900, there is a woeful lack of government investment to tackle the problem of serious violence and a total lack of investment in police resources. The strategy contradicts itself. On the one hand it says that stop and search is not correlated with violent crime, but on the other it says that certainty of punishment has a greater impact on preventing crime than severity. Despite those facts, there has been a reduction in the number of arrests and in the number of charges for serious violence—but the Government are obsessed with increasing prison sentences and reducing police budgets.
The APPG on Knife Crime, of which I am a member, has talked to young people involved in knife crime. They told us they felt unsafe, and that they did not have confidence in the police to protect them so that they have to carry a knife to protect themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, warns, a knife or a gun is coming to be seen as an essential accessory. Prisons were seen by these young people as training camps where they could learn to be smarter criminals and hang out with their mates. Having been to prison, their status among their peer group was enhanced.
As a result of the 25% reduction in police funding from central government since 2010—and the real-terms reduction is continuing—there has been not only a dramatic reduction in the number of police officers but the near-eradication of police community support officers, because the latter can be made redundant whereas the former cannot. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out, the Metropolitan Police alone have had to find savings of £600 million to date. The strategy then gives an example of where visible policing by PCSOs in hotspot areas for serious violence has led to a 39% reduction in crime. How can you replicate that when there has been a 99% reduction in the number of PCSOs?
It is not just visible deterrence, crime prevention and enforcement resources that are sadly lacking. In terms of other interventions, there are far too many expressions in the strategy of “we will look at” or “we will examine” and not enough “we will do”. For example, young people’s advocates support gang-affected women and girls. They have been going since 2012, yet the strategy says the Government will explore whether the YPA model should be expanded and supported in other areas. Is the initiative working? If it is, why, after six years, has it not been expanded? If not, why is it in the strategy at all? The strategy appears to be filled out with such examples of small initiatives involving tiny numbers of people and no promise of future government investment.
Time is against me so I will say just a few more things. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, the police and community need to stand together to tackle gun and knife crime. They did it before with Operation Trident at the end of the 1990s, when community leaders identified witnesses to black-on-black gun crime and encouraged them to come forward, protected by the police. Stop and search can be effective in taking guns and knives off the streets if the community tells the police who the gun and knife carriers are and when they carry them. However, that requires trust and confidence between the police and the community, which requires neighbourhood policing and PCSO numbers to be restored, and that requires cuts in police budgets to be reversed. That is why the Liberal Democrats, in our fully costed manifesto last year, pledged an extra £300 million a year for community policing, more than any other political party. That figure should be compared with the total promised in the strategy of £40 million, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, described it, is a drop in the ocean.
We need to get out the counternarrative to the pro-gang, pro-drug-dealing and pro-crime message that pervades social media. That is where charities such as Growing Against Violence, of which I am a patron, come in, changing perceptions and behaviours. Only those at the top of the pile in gangs and drug dealing networks earn vast wealth and avoid becoming victims of serious violence. The street dealers and those lower in the gang hierarchy take all the risks, are subjected to serious violence, and the cost-benefit analysis for them rarely turns out positively. We need to get this message across and this requires government funding. There need to be positive alternatives to gangs for young people who tell us they need a sense of belonging. This is partly as a result of family breakdown, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said.
I complain about central Government cuts to police funding but these are nothing compared with the cuts to local authorities which could, should and used to provide youth services and outreach workers, and sustainable core funding to charities and community groups which can provide a safe and positive alternative to gangs.
Young people may predominantly be involved in the increase in serious violence, but we are all to blame. We are letting them down by not listening and by not providing them with hope and opportunity or with the support that they need. As the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, we are not providing them with the education that engages them. There is some good in this strategy but it falls way short of what is required.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, for tabling this Motion which enables the House to debate the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
All of us in this House want the Government to be successful in tackling serious violence. It destroys people’s lives, families and communities. We are in the midst of a very serious problem and it is on the rise. There is no one agency to tackle this. A number of organisations have an important role to play—not only the police and the justice system. Local authorities, the health service, the youth service and many other partners and charities are involved as well.
There have also been cuts to the number of police officers—a reduction of around 20,000. This has undoubtedly affected the ability of the police to deal with crime. It is definitely a reason—not the only one, but it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Noble Lords may be aware that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, in her evidence last week to the Home Affairs Select Committee, said it would be naive to suggest that police cuts had not impacted on levels of crime. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, identified a number of ways in which we could raise some additional funds to help with this. I hope that the Minister will respond to these points.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, made some important points about police cuts, cuts to youth offending teams and generally about the loss of the youth service. Young people are being failed and put on the wrong road. Getting them back on to the right road becomes more and more difficult as people move on.
Having said that, most people are law abiding. Looking back at my time in my comprehensive school, most of my friends have done pretty well for themselves and hold down reasonable jobs. We must not forget that there are a few upper-class criminals knocking around as well. It is not just the working class. One of my best friends is a single parent. She brought up a very fine young man who is in his second year at university. She has done a marvellous job with him. There are a lot of wonderful single parents who do a wonderful job. We must never forget this.
Most serious crime is actually committed by quite a small group of individuals who make everybody else’s lives very difficult. The criminals are fully aware that they will be pursued and brought to justice for the crimes they commit. It is important that people understand this.
We have talked about the scourge of drugs, which is at the heart of a lot of serious violence—particularly crack cocaine. I was struck by the report’s stating that in half the murders between 2014-15 and 2016-17, either the victim or the suspect was known to be involved in dealing or taking drugs. At every point in the supply chain there is serious violence, and the profits from the trade are used to fund other serious violence and even terrorism. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, was absolutely right when she commented about middle-class use of crack cocaine. She was absolutely spot on and is respected across the House for the important work that she does for victims.
The age of people getting involved is also shocking, with young children of seven, eight, nine or 10 being used as mules to take drugs across county lines and coming to the attention of police forces many miles away. I know that some kids from south London were picked up in Southend. It is ridiculous where we have got ourselves to. The new national county lines co-ordination centre should help but, as noble Lords have said, much more needs to be done.
During my time on the parliamentary police scheme, I spent a few weekends in Greenwich looking at the work it has done with young people. It is wonderful work to try to steer children away from crime. Early intervention from the police, social services, schools and other professionals is required to tackle this problem.
As we have heard, knife crime is on the rise and the number of young people who have lost their lives is truly tragic. Young people carry knives for all sorts of reasons, and some clearly do it as a form of protection, but the fact that they carry a knife means they are more likely to get involved in a serious incident.
Schools have an important role to play here in the work they do with young people and making sure that knives are not brought into school, although I have also heard of the prevalence of knives being hidden around the edge of the school in bushes or trees, or on council estates. They bring their knife with them, hide it, go in to school, come out and pick it up again. I know that there have been searches in some places, with police officers checking the area around the school, and I was shocked at the number that had been found.
There is an even more worrying tendency for weapons to be made. In one case, someone had filed a spoon to turn it into a knife. It looked like a spoon, but it was actually a very sharp blade. You look and say, “Oh, he has a spoon”, but actually he has a knife. Young people may see people on television making shanks and all sorts of things. Early intervention to steer young people away from that is of the utmost importance; otherwise, they get trapped in a cycle of criminality and we all pay for the consequences.
Youth violence is a complex problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said, the role of gangs in providing a kind of family is clearly an issue. I went to primary school in Camberwell, where there has been a gang problem. I was amazed to learn that the gang that operates there would not dare cross Camberwell New Road into Lambeth, as that is another gang’s territory. That is an area I grew up in and know very well, but I had no idea that such things go on. They literally would not cross Camberwell New Road—not on their own, anyway.
Intervention must start straight away. Of course, not everyone is lucky enough to have loving parents to look after them, parents with the right skills to bring them up or, as we have heard, the right role models. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, made important points about the problems that can develop where there is no father figure in the family or someone they can look up to.
We have also mentioned Sure Start, which was of course one of the legacies of Baroness Jowell. It is disappointing that over the past eight years, we have seen the decimation of Sure Start centres, because they play a really positive role. The Government should look carefully at Sure Start and provide further funding to expand that service.
Schools and teachers also have an important role to play in equipping children with the right skills, and in being able to spot the signs of distress and trauma—as I said, not everyone has the benefit of a loving and supportive family. The youth service is crucial to that, but that too has been decimated. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made those very points.
Other noble Lords mentioned social media, which, of course, has changed our lives dramatically—unfortunately, as we have heard, not always in a positive way. It is extremely disappointing that social media companies are still not quick enough to take down illegal content and things that encourage serious violence. More should be done, and I wish the Government well in this as we need to deal with it properly. It is disappointing that we have to return to this issue again and again, and some of these companies still do not act promptly enough.
We should also recognise that smartphones and electronic equipment are helping with serious crime. The encryption services make it easier for criminals to communicate with each other and difficult to detect them, which is a problem. Having said that, smartphones often also provide a lot of evidence of criminality, but it is a difficult issue. Working on making it harder for criminals to get hold of firearms is to be welcomed, as are the restrictions on the sale of acids to those under the age of 18. A number of noble Lords mentioned knife sales, which must be kept under review. It is relatively easy to buy knives here; I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, spoke about making it at least as hard as it is to buy alcohol. We could do more work on knife sales to see that they are as they should be.
Domestic violence is a horrific crime that in many cases should be seen as really serious violence. I have spent some time with the domestic violence unit in Greenwich, and the work it does with the local council in tackling this horrific crime is to be commended. I was shocked when I saw some of the cases, involving really serious beatings and appalling stuff. I look forward to the domestic violence Bill coming to this House. What works in Greenwich is the positive collaboration between the local authority, the health service and the police, and I was impressed by what I saw there in dealing with the problem.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on citizenship. I have been to a number of citizenship ceremonies in Lewisham, where people turn up in their best and are very happy to receive their certificate. The noble Lord is absolutely right on the points he made.
This is not the first report that Governments have done to try to tackle the issues we all want tackled. My worry is that although a lot of these documents—from Governments of all persuasions—have lots of good things in them, where is the follow-through? We have to make sure that these issues are followed through. Maybe the Minister can tell us how she will do that, so we will not be back here again in two, three or four years’ time with another document about serious violence. This needs to be dealt with.
This has been a very useful debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in the debate this afternoon, and what an interesting, wide-ranging and informative debate it has been. We can all agree that there is a real willingness across the House to work together to tackle this serious issue and to see an end to the tragic loss of lives in all our communities.
I start with the issue raised by Lord Southwark, which is how to move on from here and how we do not want to be here in a few years’ time again addressing the Serious Violence Strategy. I entirely concur with him. I have been pressing the department and officials very hard on this issue, and I can give a categorical assurance here that we are taking it very seriously. It is a complex issue with complex solutions, but it is something that we want to tackle together through partnerships, working with a whole range of partners for the first time, and breaking down those barriers that have previously existed.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very important debate. I particularly pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove, who gave a very moving account of the effects of serious violence on families. I am very sad about the tragic incident that happened in her life. I know she is using her experience, and we are grateful for the significant work she is doing to help support other victims.
I have been asked a lot of very serious questions, and I have made copious notes. If I do not answer all questions today, I will endeavour to write to noble Lords and place a record in the Library for their reference.
Almost all noble Lords, in one form or another, raised the issue of funding for the strategy, including my noble friend Lady Newlove, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and Lord Southwark. I agree that the strategy will see only £40 million of Home Office money invested, but this is to support new and specific additional initiatives to tackle serious violence. It is not the only bit of money; it is in addition to the significant funding already provided to police for law enforcement and to local authorities for youth services.
The strategy includes the £11 million early intervention youth fund, as I mentioned in my opening speech, and £3.6 million over two years for the new national county lines co-ordination centre. The idea behind this centre is to work closely across all police forces, so that we have information and an evidenced approach, learning from what is happening across the country.
The noble Lords, Lord Farmer, Lord Bird, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack, Lord Southwark and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave an excellent account of the importance of family support and issues around lone parenting. This strategy recognises that family environment is important for its impact on a child’s upbringing and the risk of them being drawn into crime. That is why the Government stress the importance of early intervention, and this includes supporting families and supportive trusted relationships. The troubled families support programme provides whole-family support including a designated key worker to families with complex needs, which could include families where there is the risk of serious violence or of offending. The Government have committed £920 million to the troubled families programme from 2015 to 2020, which aims to achieve significant and sustained improvements for up to 400,000 families by 2020.
I also recognise the importance of the Sure Start programmes mentioned by Lord Southwark and others. I cannot give a categorical answer to the question he raised with me, but I recognise the importance they have had to play in the lives of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
We have also recently launched the trusted relationships fund. The Home Office is providing £13 million over the next four years to support young people at risk of child sexual exploitation, gang exploitation and peer abuse. The fund aims to support interventions which will help young people to build positive and trusted relationships with adults who are there to support them, and will reduce the risk of them becoming victims or perpetrators of crime.
I was interested when my noble friend Lord Farmer said “be in that crew and have a family”. I recognise that term, and it is really important and absolutely essential that we address that issue so that young people do not feel that they have to be part of a particular gang or part of a crew. I hope that what I have identified stresses clearly the importance that the Government place on family and family life and parenting.
Additionally, the Home Office is supporting police forces to develop new models of preventive policing. Around £7 million has been awarded to the four police forces in Wales which, in collaboration with Public Health Wales, will test a new approach to policing which prevents and mitigates against adverse childhood experiences. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, mentioned social workers and the impact of adverse childhood experiences, which need to be addressed. That work is based on research; it is going to be evidence-based and about the impact of childhood trauma and environment on the future risk of being a victim or offender. We will monitor and evaluate that work very closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, raised the importance of good schools and resources, as did other noble Lords. Once again, I was struck by the noble Lord’s phrase when he asked, “Who is this person?” He said that it came from a sense of need and raised the issues of disadvantage. Once again, those issues are recognised in the strategy, and we will look at implementing proposals as we gain more information on how we can tackle this complex issue.
A number of noble Lords referred to police numbers and resources. Police and law enforcement play a vital role in tackling these offences. However, as I have already said, big shifts in crime records tend to be driven by factors outside of the police’s control, such as drug rends and markets. Overall, public investment is growing, from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to just over £13 billion in 2018-19. However, the Home Secretary has made it clear that he will work with the police to assess and put forward the evidence to ensure that the police receive the resources they need to do their vital work.
I am conscious that I still have pertinent questions to answer. One other area that most noble Lords mentioned was to do with youth services. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lady Newlove, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and others were all concerned about reductions in youth services funding. Of course, we all recognise the importance of activities and services that help young people to develop their skills, but we must remember that local authorities are responsible for allocating funding to youth services, in line with local needs. The Government have made more than £200 billion available to councils for spending on local services up to 2019-20.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked whether I would be happy to meet him to talk about youth services. Of course, Ministers, such as my noble friend Lady Williams, and I are always very happy to discuss with anyone any issues outlined.
Stop and search was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Stop and search remains a key priority for the Home Office. The best use of the stop and search scheme is a powerful vehicle for driving improvement. Of course, police use of stop and search must be done proportionately and fairly, and member forces are held to high standards to ensure that that is done.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, also talked about the importance of new technology. I agree with him that there are a number of benefits that come with the use of body-worn cameras in stop and search. These include the protection of both the officer and the public. These cameras have been used to record stop-and-search encounters and we support their use for this purpose by forces across the country.
Lord Southwark, my noble friend Lord Balfe and others raised issues—
Baroness Manzoor
I am so sorry. I have to stop referring to “Lord Southwark”. There is no such person: it is the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I sincerely apologise to the House and to the noble Lord. Ever since I came to your Lordships’ House, I have thought of the noble Lord as “Lord Southwark” —I bet that people were wondering who on earth this person was, so I again offer my sincere apologies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, social media itself has nothing to do with serious violence, but he is right that there is strong evidence that rival gangs are using social media to promote gang culture, taunt each other and incite violence, and this must stop. The Home Secretary and other Ministers are meeting with various media platforms to ensure that we can get them to take off any material very quickly and to go faster to tackle illegal content online.
I turn now to specific questions that were raised. They are not in any order, but I thought they were very important. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others have said, it is important that we have a multistrand approach; this is essential to tackling serious violence. It involves a range of partners across different sectors. We cannot do this on our own, and therefore, while the amount of money—£40 million—seems small, there is already a significant amount of funding in place. This will pump-prime better co-ordination.
My noble friend Lady Newlove raised the importance of positive alternatives for young people. We recognise this, and that is why we are addressing the image issue and are looking at positive role models, as well as addressing county lines and looking at exploitation of young people. We will be providing £11 million over the next two years to support early intervention and prevention through the early intervention youth fund. We are pleased to have Kathryn Morley, chief executive of OnSide, on the serious violence task group.
On the tackling of county lines, we are providing £3.6 million, as I said, to support the new national county lines co-ordination centre. My noble friend Lady Eaton raised this issue. The centre will also help the National Crime Agency and the police to improve their understanding of county lines. It will also support operation policing. We need to do this because, if we do not, the evaluation that we talked about before and the improvements that we want to bring about will not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, also talked about county lines and the exploitation of young people, and asked what works. I have already addressed that; the strategy places a strong emphasis on building on evidence of what works, and the College of Policing is looking at this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, also spoke about evidence that class A drugs are driving serious violence. The strategy sets out clearly some of the issues and does the analysis of what is driving serious violence, and, as we have mentioned, drugs are an important factor. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, also mentioned the importance of social workers, and it is key that we ensure that they are engaged early. Through this, the co-ordinating centre will ensure that this is taken forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked what action we are taking to disrupt supply of firearms at the border. As the noble Lord will know, we have been applying the lessons learned from Operation Dragon Root, which was a multiagency operation undertaken in autumn 2016 that involved the NCA, counterterrorism policing, regional organised crime units, border forces and others. That includes a new joint firearms unit, funded by the Police Transformation Fund, and we will give money to have more effective responses to illicit firearm supply. I will not say too much more about the Police Transformation Fund, because I addressed that in my opening speech. However, it is a police-led and police-driven fund, and people are bidding into it; the Home Office will look at how they deliver those services and evaluate them.
My noble friend Lady Eaton spoke about children’s services and the funding gap. Over £200 billion has been made available to councils to deliver local services, including children’s services, up to 2020, and of course we will concentrate on spending about £1 billion on the most vulnerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked passionately about the root causes of crime and the issues of education and poverty, and I agree entirely with him. My father, who died when I was in my 20s, advocated the importance of education—I do not come from a privileged background. We recognise that the root causes of violence are complex, which is why the strategy places a new emphasis on early intervention and prevention. In January 2018 it was announced that £90 million of dormant accounts money will go to supporting disadvantaged and disengaged young people with their transition to work.
My noble friend Lord Balfe talked about the sale of knives online. A new offensive weapons Bill, which will be introduced within weeks, will include a new offence preventing knives being sent to people’s homes when bought online.
A number of questions were asked by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Suri. I have already said that I will write to reply to all the questions that have been asked. As I have run out of time, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not answering their questions, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who asked a number of key questions about YPAs; I will of course write to him.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I very much look forward to working with them closely on this important strategy, because we all want to make a real difference to young people’s lives.
G7: Charlevoix, Quebec
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the G7 summit in Quebec. The G7 is a forum that allows close allies with shared history and values to discuss issues that affect the security and prosperity of our people and of the world at large. Discussion at this year’s summit focused on our shared efforts to promote the rules-based international order; to advance free and fair global trade by making the global economy work for everyone; to strive for equal opportunities for all our citizens; and to drive further action to protect the environment, and in particular our oceans. As was clear over the weekend, there was strong debate and disagreement on some issues, but, after detailed discussions between leaders and our teams, we were able to find common ground and draw up a communiqué which reflected these discussions and the agreements we reached.
I want to pay particular tribute to Prime Minister Trudeau for his leadership and skilful chairing, which enabled us—after two days of negotiation between leaders—to agree actions and a shared approach on some of the most pressing challenges facing the international community and our citizens. The UK fully intends to honour the commitments we have made.
Recent events have underlined the importance of a strong international response to malign state activity. We cannot stand by when international law is undermined, when the security of our citizens is compromised and when foreign interference in our democratic institutions threatens the values and interests that we share. So at this summit we agreed to establish a new rapid response mechanism. As a result, G7 nations will work together to share intelligence, co-ordinate action and develop new strategies to tackle this growing threat.
We also agreed that we must maintain the global norm against the use of chemical weapons and that we will strengthen the ability of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to attribute responsibility for chemical weapon attacks. We all agreed in our discussions and our communiqué that we need to maintain sanctions on Russia in light of its failure to fully implement the Minsk agreements in Ukraine and that we stand ready to take further restrictive measures if necessary.
Turning to trade and the global economy, it is clear that in many of our countries some people feel left behind by globalisation and that not all countries are playing by the rules. We must address this. We need to make the international rules-based trading system work better so that the benefits of free trade can be felt by all. This includes encouraging the World Trade Organization to operate more effectively in supporting a global economy that works for everyone. Multilateral action is the right way to achieve this. It cannot be done by taking unilateral action against your partners.
So at this summit we expressed deep disappointment at the unjustified decision of the United States to apply tariffs to steel and aluminium imports. The loss of trade through tariffs undermines competition, reduces productivity, removes the incentive to innovate and ultimately makes everyone poorer—and in response the EU will impose countermeasures. But we need to avoid a continued tit-for-tat escalation. That is why it was right that we had such an open and direct discussion at this summit and why, as a champion of free trade, the UK will continue to support a constructive dialogue. As long-standing allies we do not make progress by ignoring each other’s concerns but rather by addressing them together.
Turning to equality, there was a special session at this summit focused on empowering and supporting women and girls around the world. Efforts to tackle global poverty are fundamentally undermined as long as millions of girls are not getting the education they deserve. So at this summit the United Kingdom announced £187 million of new funding to support over 400,000 girls in developing countries in getting 12 years of quality education.
We also called for new action to prevent gender-based violence, abuse and harassment online. Women and girls must be able to use the internet without fear of being subjected to online rape threats, harassment, cyberstalking, blackmail and more. Following the UK’s call for action last year, tech companies have made real advances in tackling online terrorist propaganda. In Canada I called for this work to be extended to end the abuse targeted specifically at women and girls. We committed in particular to new joint working on stopping the internet being used to facilitate people trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
Finally, on World Oceans Day, the UK sought to build on the international agreements we reached at the Commonwealth summit in April by calling for a global effort to protect our oceans from avoidable plastic waste. This is one of the great environmental challenges facing the world today. This summit recognised the need for global action, including working with business, industry and non-governmental organisations to find innovative solutions. The UK is continuing to lead by example at home through our 25-year environment plan, and on Friday we proposed to extend the blue belt protecting sea life around the English coast, with a further 41 new marine conservation zones.
This was a difficult summit with, at times, some very candid discussions, but the conclusion I draw is that it is only through continued dialogue that we can find ways to work together to resolve the challenges we face. The countries around the G7 table have been pillars of the rules-based international order, which has benefited all our citizens and, I believe, the world as a whole. The United Kingdom, with our allies and partners, will continue to play our part in promoting that order to the benefit of all. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Prime Minister on resisting the temptation to issue her Statement on the summit on Twitter.
We agree with the opening remarks in the Statement: it is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose and value of the G7. These seven developed, large modern economies have recognised both self-interest as a group and wider world responsibilities. We have worked together during financial crises and on the sustainable development goals, and we have taken action on debt for the heavily indebted poor countries. There have obviously been criticisms of that time, but these gatherings have been optimistic and have sought to be effective and responsible.
This time, it is fair to say that expectations were pretty low before the summit, but I suspect that the real outcomes—not just those in the communiqué—are more worrying than anyone anticipated. It is increasingly clear that, despite the best efforts of G7 members to seek to manage and engage with President Trump, the US President does not abide by the same rules. It may appear chaotic, but his unpredictability has become very predictable. Even as other G7 leaders and the EU Council President thanked Prime Minister Trudeau and his team for hosting the summit, President Trump tore up the diplomatic rule book to decry the Canadian Prime Minister as being “weak” and “dishonest”. Those now trademark forthright tweets appear to isolate him from the G7 as an effective group and, whatever agreements are reached and whatever compromises are made, it is not certain whether the agreement or acquiescence of the US will last as long as the flight home.
One part of the Prime Minister’s Statement evoked memories of the understatements of Sir Humphrey Appleby and Jim Hacker in “Yes, Prime Minister”—the part where she says:
“This was a difficult summit with, at times, some very candid discussions”.
How well this was illustrated by the marvellous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by the other leaders, as she leans forward across a table to a seated President Trump, with his arms folded, looking away from her at something in the distance—he did not want to look at her. You could almost hear that “candid discussion”.
The implication of this summit is that it appears that President Trump does not see himself or the US as part of a global strategy seeking a consensus on key international issues. Indeed, he does not appear to value his association with the UK. The Prime Minister has made much of her special relationship with President Trump, and Ministers have been vocal in their opinion of the necessity of this, particularly in a post-Brexit world. However, when asked about his relationship with the G7, President Trump declared that the level of his relationship was a 10 with “Angela, Emmanuel and Justin”, very pointedly and deliberately ignoring Mrs May and, later, briefing against her. If our Prime Minister has irked the President in some way, it could well be to her personal credit that she has done so, but it does not bode well for our transatlantic special relationship. It also means that our relationship with our European partners is all the more essential.
Even without US endorsement, there are some good and strong outcomes in the communiqué. We appreciate that the G6 has signed up to a progressive, value-based programme that is to be welcomed. It includes the condemnation of Russia’s destabilising behaviour in seeking to undermine democratic systems, its support of the Syrian regime and the attack in Salisbury. Yet, although initially signing up to this, President Trump also called for Russia to again be part of a G8 summit.
We welcome the recognition that ensuring that all citizens benefit from the proceeds of growth is essential for a cohesive modern society to meet the challenges ahead. Given the imposition of the new US tariffs, to which the noble Baroness referred, President Trump’s intentions, if not the accuracy of the assessment, could not have been clearer. The Prime Minister refers to the open, direct discussion, but President Trump did not sound like he was discussing it with anyone. He said:
“We’re like the piggy bank that everyone’s robbing. And that ends”.
He went on:
“If they retaliate…we win that war a thousand times out of a thousand”.
This is clearly a difficult situation. Can the noble Baroness say anything more about the implications for the forthcoming EU summit and what discussions she has already had with our current European partners?
The commitment to a more secure and peaceful world and advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment are important statements but, to be effective, they must jointly be acted on with political will and adequate funding. This was also a key issue at CHOGM earlier this year. I ask the noble Baroness, if she can respond today, how this builds on the CHOGM discussions. Is it consistent with the outcomes from that conference?
The statement on the protection and sustainability of our oceans and coastal communities is clear and far-reaching. Was the impact of the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement properly discussed? The comment at the end of that section of the communiqué is conciliatory to the US, but that US decision has serious implications.
If we are to build a more peaceful and secure world, all countries must abide by international law and their international responsibilities. Yet, in the past few days, the Italian Government have refused to let a rescue ship dock despite it carrying around 600 refugees, including young children, unaccompanied minors and pregnant women. That undermines those international agreements and the sense of shared responsibilities that underpin bodies such as the G7 and the G20. What discussions have the UK had with other EU countries regarding this situation and future implications?
I hope that, when the noble Baroness answers the questions today, she will also turn her attention to the value of the relationship we will have in the future with our EU partners.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is easy to feel some sympathy for the Prime Minister and the other non-US members of the G7 today. It must be extraordinarily frustrating dealing with an American president given to “fits of anger”, to quote President Macron, and they must all share Chancellor Merkel’s view that it was “sobering and a little depressing”. Again, Sir Humphrey would appreciate the understatement in that phrase.
For the Prime Minister and her colleagues, though, it must be particularly depressing because a large part of the case which Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and others make for Brexit rests on the assertion that the UK will receive a warmer welcome from the other English-speaking countries in negotiating favourable free trade arrangements if we free ourselves from the shackles of the EU. America’s supposed commitment to free trade was the key to that argument, as was the closeness of the special relationship which, we were told, would guarantee British leaders easy and preferential access to the White House. President Trump has now demonstrated that he does not believe in the special relationship at all. The Prime Minister does not even feature in the list of leaders with whom he has a good relationship—or, rather, had a good relationship, before he fell out with all of them—and he rejects the principles of free trade. This leaves the justification for leaving the EU to pursue more open markets elsewhere dead in the water. How appropriate that it was World Oceans Day with the Government and the G7 so at sea.
The G7 meeting has rightly been described as a G6 plus one, with the UK aligned with France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan in resisting the arguments of the US. However, only last week our Foreign Secretary was describing our European neighbours as the enemy rather than the allies with whom we are most closely associated and with whom we share interests and such close values. It is hardly surprising that the Prime Minister appeared to play only a marginal role in this summit, while Merkel and Macron stood up to Trump. Is it not the case that we have now marginalised ourselves as a nation and lack any coherent foreign policy whatsoever? The EU will now impose retaliatory measures against the US tariffs on steel and aluminium, but the Prime Minister is urging caution. In the Statement, she says that she wants to avoid tit-for-tat measures, but that is what countermeasures are. Could the Leader of the House, therefore, explain what sort of measures the PM does think appropriate? Could she explain what the Prime Minister hopes to gain by resisting calls from the rest of the EU for a firmer response?
The Prime Minister also said that, as long-standing allies, we do not make progress by ignoring each other’s concerns but by addressing them together. What do those words mean in the context of the attitude of President Trump, and by what means does the Prime Minister propose to do this in practice? Is she really going to start replying to President Trump’s tweets, or is there some sense in her mind about what those words might mean?
The world today is in greater disarray than it has been for decades. Nothing in the Prime Minister’s Statement would give you any sense that that is the case. In these circumstances, you need to embrace your friends in order to rebuff those who do you harm. This weekend has demonstrated that our friends are in Europe, and that we should be standing with them and not planning a walk into the wilderness.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I say again, as the Prime Minister made clear in her statement, this was a challenging summit, and we are not denying that, and there were difficult discussions, but we continue to believe that continued dialogue is the way to make progress.
In relation to the communiqué, as we said, it was agreed by all parties. We fully intend to honour it, and we certainly hope that the US will also stand by the agreements made, and we will continue to have discussions around that.
On the question that the noble Baroness asked about Russia, the Prime Minister was very clear that, before any conversations can take place about Russia’s future involvement in this group, it must change its approach. Of course, we have to remind ourselves why the G8 became the G7. It was because of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea—again, a point that was reiterated at the summit.
On the questions on climate change, the Prime Minister once again made it clear that we remain firmly committed to the Paris Agreement, and the international momentum that underpins it, we believe, is irreversible. What we now need to do to move forward is agree on a robust set of rules to enable it to function effectively. While we may differ on the Paris Agreement, we still believe that within the G7 we can work together on solutions to address impacts and build greater resilience while creating economic opportunities.
The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of the ship that was not taken by Italy or Malta. I think it is good that Spain has now said that it will step in, so we are very pleased that progress has been made there. Of course, we will continue to support international efforts to effectively manage migration flows, tackle people smuggling and prevent people from making perilous journeys across the central Mediterranean Sea. We are committed to working with European partners in continuing with our efforts to aid Italy and other countries with the issues that they face.
On the comments by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about our relationship with the United States, it is true that of course difficulties were experienced in the summit, but we remain strong partners and allies. We have of course recently worked together to expel Russian spies, to increase bilateral data sharing and to make plans for the next generation of F35s. Of course, when the President visits in July, we will be able to continue some of the discussions that we have had over the past few days.
The noble Baroness asked about the £187 million of new funding announced at the summit. That will support more than 400,000 marginalised girls in developing countries such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Nepal and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It builds on the commitments made at the Commonwealth summit and the announcement of £212 million for phase 2 of the Girls’ Education Challenge. Those funds will help nearly 1 million marginalised girls across the Commonwealth to benefit from quality education to 2025.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked, quite rightly, about tariffs. I reiterate the point that the EU will impose countermeasures, but we all want to avoid a continued escalation and to maintain a constructive dialogue. We will continue to work with the EU and the US to achieve a permanent exemption. The Commission is required to seek member state approval for any countermeasures to come into effect; it has announced its intention to do that this month. We made the point that we believe that the US tariffs hit the wrong target. China alone was responsible for roughly half of the overcapacity in steel in 2017. We believe that we need to use the G20 Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity, in which China is involved, to help encourage a reduction in excess capacity. We also need a concerted international push to strengthen the global system of trade rules.
We of course want to continue to work constructively with our EU partners and friends. At this summit, we stood firm with them on a number of issues and we will continue to do so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that, for some of us, this is an almost surreal communiqué? It talks about the agreement of communiqué, but the President of United States has already resisted it. We are committed to the World Trade Organization, but the United States Administration are currently doing their utmost to undermine the global trading system, including—as I read in my emails this morning—by resisting the appointment of new judges to the arbitration procedures. So we have a crisis in the global trading system that this Statement does not begin to reflect.
Does the noble Baroness also accept that the commitment to a “rules-based trading system”, which is again proclaimed in the Statement, is resisted by many within her own party as incompatible with British sovereignty when it comes to the European Union and that their suggestion that the World Trade Organization will be sufficient does not come to terms either with the weakness of the world trading system or with the necessary compromises of sovereignty which those international rules would require of Britain?
Lastly and most importantly, since the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Foreign Secretary appear to regard the EU as the enemy, and the sooner we get out from co-operating with it the better, can the noble Baroness inform us whether we intend to co-operate with the other members of the EU in imposing countermeasures for the next nine months, for the next nine months plus the transition and implementation period or for longer? We thought that solidarity with the EU was something that we were about to get rid of.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I reiterate that we remain a leading supporter of the global rules-based trading system. However, we accept that some elements of the WTO could be improved and we will continue to discuss issues such as improving transparency and dealing with state-owned enterprises and industrial subsidies with our partners—but we believe that the WTO plays an important role at the centre of our system.
On the noble Lord’s question on steel tariffs, I have said that we are working with our EU partners to achieve a permanent exemption. We will work with them in relation to countermeasures. The Commission will be required to seek member state approval for these to come into effect, which it intends to do this month. We will of course be involved in those discussions.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the repetition of the Prime Minister’s Statement, which contained a report that the G7 agreed to strengthen the power of the OPCW to attribute chemical attacks. The OPCW does not have such a power—another UN body did, but it was closed when the Russians exercised their veto to stop its mandate being renewed. So how does the G7 without Russia intend to give this power to any body in the United Nations? Is there any explanation? What did the Prime Minister actually agree to?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The communiqué agreed that we must maintain the global norms against the use of chemical weapons and there was agreement among leaders on the need to strengthen the ability—as the noble Lord pointed out, it is not there at the moment—of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks. As he will be aware, there is a special conference of state parties later this month, which will be an important moment to demonstrate our determination to reinforce the Chemical Weapons Convention. We will, of course, be an active participant.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it would appear from what happened earlier today or late yesterday that President Trump has dissociated himself from the communiqué. Is that officially the position, or is the United States still officially signed up? When are we likely to have the pleasure of welcoming President Trump to this country? I think it would be a good thing if he did come, because he could hear what we think, as well as us hearing what he thinks. Has his invitation been confirmed?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I think I mentioned in answer to another question, the communiqué was agreed by all parties. We fully intend to honour it and we hope that the US will continue to stand by the agreements made. I believe that President Trump’s visit is on 13 July: I could be wrong but it is certainly in July. He and the Prime Minister discussed the visit briefly and both are looking forward to it.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the G7 was a total disaster so far as the values of freedom and democracy that we in the West have upheld for decades are concerned. The next major meeting of international leadership will be the NATO summit next month. What lessons do the Government think they will have learned from the G7, particularly about President Trump’s views on NATO, to ensure that the NATO summit does not end up like the G7?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the Statement said, the conclusion the Prime Minister drew from this summit is that it is only through continued dialogue, through whichever forums, that we can work together to resolve issues that may have been raised. Of course, we will also make very clear to President Trump, as we have been doing consistently, that we are firmly committed to meeting the NATO commitment to spend 2% of GDP. Chancellor Merkel herself has admitted that President Trump has a point about Germany’s comparative low defence budget, so I am sure that there will again be robust discussions, but I am sure that continued dialogue is the way forward. President Trump has identified his commitment to NATO in the past and we look forward to seeing that continued during the summit.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, leaves the House in even greater confusion. Is it the position of the Government that President Trump still endorses the final communiqué that he is said to have signed, or that he does not? On what evidence does the noble Baroness say that she thinks that he does still intend to support the commitments in the communiqué?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
What I said was that we hope that they will continue to stand by the arrangements. I do not speak for President Trump, so I cannot give the noble Lord the answer he wants. I think I have been pretty clear about our position and what we expect and hope to see from the United States.
Lord Jones of Birmingham (CB)
Will the Minister please give us the benefit of her observation on the fact that we heard only a few months ago from members of the Opposition in this House and the other place that President Trump would not be welcome in this country and that the Government should not extend an invitation to him—yet those same people are now saying that we are at the bottom of the list of his affection? I would suggest that hypocrisy comes to mind.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I mentioned, the President and the Prime Minister had a brief word about his visit; they are both looking forward to it. We will take the opportunity to advance our common interests further, reflect on the importance of the relationship between our two countries and, no doubt, have further robust conversations.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, Russia has been mentioned on a number of occasions this afternoon. Is it anticipated that sanctions targeting Russia will exist in perpetuity, given that there are many who apparently believe that they will never exit Crimea—or were different scenarios considered?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The leaders were very clear that the duration of sanctions is linked to Russia’s complete implementation of its commitments in the Minsk agreements, and we stand ready to take further restrictive measures if necessary, should their actions require it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as we have time, I wonder whether I can help the noble Baroness. She was asked twice about President Trump’s reaction to the communiqué and whether he has signed it. In a tweet yesterday, he said:
“Based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive tariffs to our US farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our US reps not to endorse the communique as we look at tariffs on automobiles flooding the US market!”.
It would seem clear that he has withdrawn any support he gave to the communiqué at the meeting.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said in answers to a number of questions, all I can say is that we hope that they continue to stand by the agreements. We will certainly continue to honour them and we will continue to have discussions with President Trump on these issues.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
May I ask again for a reply to the question I asked: will we continue to apply EU countermeasures to the United States after March 2019? This is an important question—and if there is no answer now, could we have one in the next few days?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
What I can certainly say is that we understand the importance of the steel industry in this country. We want to make sure that jobs are protected and we will continue to do that going forward. I will see if there is any further information that I can provide.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, the Leader of the House will confirm that, notwithstanding our leaving the European Union, we will still be a member of the G7, working closely with other members, and that we will be in a position to agree and, in so far as possible, enforce any relevant sanctions.
Grenfell Tower
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the permission of the House I beg leave to repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend James Brokenshire, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the other place earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower fire, meeting our commitment to update the House following the Opposition day debate on 16 May. I am also writing to the Chair of the Select Committee to provide a formal report on progress, a copy of which will be placed in the House Library.
As we prepare to mark a year since that tragedy, this will be an extremely painful time for the community. Many honourable Members provided powerful and poignant contributions in the e-petition and Opposition day debates last month, and I know that the whole House will join me in sending the bereaved and survivors our love and prayers.
The fourteenth of June 2017 saw the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. Seventy-one people lost their lives on the night of the fire, and a former tower resident who was rescued from the 19th floor passed away earlier this year. The start of the public inquiry was a timely reminder of that terrible human cost: a baby who never lived to learn how much he was loved; three generations of a family wiped out; and heroes who died saving others. Nobody could fail to be moved by the extraordinary tributes paid by family and friends to the loved ones they lost, by their courage and dignity in the face of unimaginable loss, and, yes, by their anger too. A catastrophe of this kind should never have happened in the United Kingdom in 2017 and, when it did, the initial response was not good enough. Nothing can undo the anguish and devastation this has caused, but as the Prime Minister has said, we can and must do right by the memory of those who lost their lives and those left behind, by supporting those affected, securing justice and, above all, ensuring that nothing like this can ever happen again.
There has been an unprecedented effort across government and our public services. Help is being provided on a range of issues—from advice on benefits to emotional and mental health support. In total, we have spent over £46 million of national Government funds and committed a further £34 million to help meet rehousing costs, deliver new mental health services and deliver improvements to the Lancaster West estate. The appointment of my right honourable friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner as Grenfell victims’ Minister has helped ensure that the voices of those affected inform the response. We set up the independent Grenfell recovery task force to help and challenge the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to provide better support for residents and rebuild trust. I want to thank everyone for their tireless support, particularly the emergency services and the public and voluntary sectors.
Clearly, one of the most pressing issues has been rehousing those who lost their homes. A large-scale programme of investment work has been under way to ensure homes are of good quality and personalised to meet the needs of families. The council has acquired more than 300 homes in and around the borough. A total of 203 households needed new homes, and 198 have accepted permanent or temporary accommodation. That means that all but five households have accepted offers, and 134 have now moved in. Most of the work to ensure all homes that have been accepted are ready to move into is complete, and we expect many of the remaining properties to be ready in the coming weeks. While those households are preparing to move, the council has ensured that they have all have had the option to move into more suitable accommodation, but I remain concerned about the 43 households who are living in hotels. My ministerial team has met many of them and I have personally written to all of them to find out what barriers exist in each individual case and how we can overcome them.
This is not where any of us wanted to be one year on from the fire. While there has been progress in recent weeks, overall the pace has been too slow. My department and the independent taskforce continue to provide scrutiny and challenge to the council, and we have provided additional resources directly to the council to help speed up this work. We will not rest until everyone is settled into new homes.
Those affected also badly need answers and to see justice done. The Grenfell Tower inquiry and Metropolitan Police investigations will ensure this happens, but we must also learn from what has happened. Over the past year my department has been working closely with fire and rescue services, local authorities and landlords to make sure that other buildings like Grenfell Tower are safe. Remediation work has started on two-thirds of buildings in the social housing sector, and the Prime Minister announced last month that the Government will fully fund the removal and replacement of potentially dangerous ACM cladding on buildings over 18 metres high owned by social landlords, with costs estimated at £400 million, and we have made it clear that we expect building owners in the private sector not to pass costs on to leaseholders. To that end, I recently met leaseholders and put their concerns to representatives from industry at a number of roundtables. Some in the sector, such as Barratt Developments, Legal & General and Taylor Wimpey, are doing the right thing and taking responsibility. I urge all others to follow. The private sector must step up, and I am ruling nothing out if it does not.
In addition, I recently welcomed Dame Judith Hackitt’s final, comprehensive report following her independent review of building regulations and fire safety. In response, I committed to bringing forward legislation to reform the system of fire safety and give residents a stronger voice. Having listened carefully to concerns, the Government intend to ban the use of combustible materials on the external walls of high-rise residential buildings, subject to consultation. We will publish the consultation next week.
It is essential that people living in buildings like Grenfell Tower are not only safe but feel that the state understands their lives and works for them. There is no question but that their faith in that has been shaken. That is why, as well as strengthening building and fire safety, we will be publishing a social housing Green Paper by the recess. I am confident that these measures will help us to rebuild public trust and deliver the meaningful, lasting change that is needed.
Our country has seen many difficult times, but that night at Grenfell Tower was one of our darkest hours. We will never forget those who died. We will not falter in our support for those who are still grieving, or flag in our determination to ensure that no community has to go through such agonies again. In doing so, we can be inspired by the incredible spirit of the people of north Kensington and the way they have come together. And when we say never again, we mean it. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I shall start where the Minister finished: as he said in the Statement, when we say “never again” we mean it, and that is absolutely paramount.
As the Minister said, the fire happened a year ago next Thursday, and the total of 72 people is the biggest loss of life in Britain due to a fire since the Second World War. Recently I watched the “Panorama” programme, which brought back the images of what happened that night. It was a truly horrific and terrible event and all our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Every time we have a Statement on Grenfell, our thanks go out to everyone in the local community who has helped: the civil servants, the staff from the borough council and from other councils, the faith sector, the charities, and the community who have come together to help this part of north Kensington to move on and try to get lives back on track.
Having said that, here we are a year on and still more than half the Grenfell survivors are in either hotel rooms or temporary accommodation. I accept entirely that the Minister would not want to see that but it is still not a good situation to find themselves in. There are also more than 300 other tower blocks with the same unlawful cladding on them and so far only 10 have had it removed or replaced. We are not sure where we stand with the private sector, where there are even more such blocks. This is not a good place to be. It is fair to say that the residents of Grenfell Tower were failed long before the fire, and some of them clearly feel that they have been failed since. Actually, if I am right, only 82 residents out of the 209 are in permanent replacement homes, and that is just not good enough.
I believe the North Kensington Law Centre has released a document saying that even in the new homes there are defects in terms of damp and delayed repairs, while some of the tenancies that have been offered are not the same that the residents had at Grenfell Tower. I do not know if that is the case, but if it is then it really needs to be corrected; they should be offered exactly the same tenancies that they had in the tower.
Does the department now have any sort of estimate or deadline for when people will be permanently rehoused? To start with, the Prime Minister talked about getting it done in a matter of weeks, but that has been extended and extended. I know that in the last Statement the Government talked about a year’s time, but at what point do they now see everyone getting into a new home and being able to start to rebuild their lives? We do not want to be back here again in the autumn not much further forward.
On the question of the other high-rise blocks, only 10 local authority tower blocks out of more than 300 have had their cladding replaced. The Government said they would do everything it takes to “keep our people safe”, so in that sense I welcome the £400 million funding that the Minister has announced to remove the cladding. It has come from another budget but it is still welcome. I also welcome the intention to ban combustible material on the outside of tower blocks. Is that all the Government are going to do, though, or are they going to go further? There has been talk before of looking at retrofitting sprinklers in tower blocks. I do not know if the Government are thinking about those sorts of things. Where are we on the question of evacuation procedures in blocks of flats? When will we be in a position to confirm that all blocks of flats are safe?
I was pleased with the important point that the Minister made about the private blocks, which has our full support: blocks in the private sector have to be corrected as well and those costs should not be passed on to the leaseholders. I welcome that.
On the inquiry itself, the tributes to the victims and families were very moving. I wish the inquiry well as it has a very important job to do. After that there will of course be the result of the police investigation, but I will leave it there.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a Kirklees councillor.
Seventy-two men, women and children tragically died in the Grenfell Tower fire. Our responsibility to their memories and to those who survive is to seek the truth, secure justice and make the radical change to culture and practice so that no such fire occurs ever again.
Last week, I met representatives of Grenfell United and listened. I was struck by their quiet determination and by the inspiring leadership of their fellow survivors. They want all the facts before, during and after the disaster to be exposed to the full light of day. Then, those responsible for the decisions that enabled the fire to be so catastrophic must be brought to justice.
All these issues are, of course, the subject of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and we must wait for it to hear the evidence and draw its conclusions. However, what is clear so far is the painfully slow response of the Government to the consequences of this disaster. One year on, some of the survivors are still living in hotel accommodation and have been for a whole year. There is no chance for them even to attempt to start their lives again.
From the information I was given by Grenfell United, some of the accommodation purchased by Kensington and Chelsea Council was totally inappropriate. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the information I heard that one of the survivors was allocated a basement flat with no direct access to daylight. Does he regard this as appropriate in the circumstances of what those families had already endured?
Then there is the issue of the dangerous cladding. I welcome the proposal for a ban on ACM cladding in today’s Statement and that a consultation will begin shortly. This is really positive but this cladding continues to be on many public and private buildings. It is reported in the press that 32 NHS hospitals, several hotels and at least one school, as well as 132 private sector and 208 public sector tower blocks, have this dangerous cladding. Can the Minister assure the House that all these buildings will have the cladding removed as quickly as possible so that people who live or work in them can have some improved peace of mind? Meanwhile, can the Minister explain what actions are being recommended to provide additional safety in these buildings and information as to whether those in the public sector will have compensatory government payments for all their additional costs? As many people will know, fire safety wardens are being employed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that no fire starts in these buildings and that, if one does, prompt action can be taken. This will be a huge additional cost in the social housing sector. Can the Government assure us that all buildings with this cladding have been identified, with the owners acknowledging their responsibility, and that the Government will monitor that effective remedial action has or will be taken in a timely way? If we are not careful, the curse of this cladding will continue for years to come.
On this day, our thoughts and prayers are with all those people—residents and rescuers—whose lives have been indelibly scarred by this disaster.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister responds, I make clear that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am grateful to the noble Lord for refreshing our memory.
I start by thanking both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness—and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, over a period of time—for their general support in dealing with what has been a very difficult, heart-rending situation. It has aided the consideration of some very important issues in this House, so I thank them very much.
I shall try to deal with the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in so far as I can. If I miss any—and on some points of detail—I may need to write to them, and I will of course ensure that that is copied to other noble Lords participating on the Statement, with a copy placed in the Library.
First, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their words about the civil servant and public sector work that has been done in the community since the dreadful fire at Grenfell, and about the faith sector and the charitable sector. I was recently at a meeting in the community hall of the local mosque, where Muslim Aid was talking about the work done and the commitment of people in the faith sector and particularly mentioned the West London Synagogue. This was a general commitment from the faith sector in the area, an outpouring of support from individuals and from the third sector, which is a continuing feature of what is happening at Grenfell.
The noble Lord mentioned points in the North Kensington Law Centre report. I know of the report but I must admit that I have not studied it in detail. I will certainly do so and cover those points in response to him. He will be aware that experts will be sitting with Judge Moore-Bick on the second phase of the inquiry, which I think helps to provide the disinfectant of sunlight which we all welcome for transparency. He asked questions raised by the North Kensington Law Centre about rent in the same general terms. Of course, there is a rates, rents and utilities holiday—although holiday is not the right word. There will be no rent, rates—council tax—or utilities payable until June 2019, I think, for families who were in Grenfell Tower or Grenfell Walk. For other families, there is an abatement of those bills, although not on the same terms—to a lesser extent.
The noble Lord referred to the rehousing effort. Let me say first that every household has been offered at least one alternative. The noble Baroness mentioned somewhere without sunlight in a basement. I am extremely surprised to hear that, but I will look at that case. If she has more detail, that would be useful. I join her in paying tribute to the work done by Grenfell United. We may have been at the same occasion when Grenfell United was present, and it has done a remarkable amount, as have others from the community.
The noble Lord asked about retrofitting sprinklers. He will be aware that new blocks more than 30 metres high, I think, are having sprinklers fitted. There is a general issue about retrofit. He will know that this was not recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt: she dealt with the issue but did not recommend that. However, in addition to the £400 million support specifically for ACM cladding, if local authorities can justify it, we will certainly consider financial flexibility for them. This follows recommendations done earlier by the Lakanal inquiry about sprinklers, and that local authorities can do that independently. There is nothing to stop that happening, except perhaps the finance, but we will look at financial flexibilities if the case is made.
The noble Baroness referred to interim measures while the cladding work is being done. Of course, we are committed to all the combustible ACM cladding being removed from both social and private sector buildings. We think we have identified all the private sector buildings and are confirming whether all of them have ACM cladding. We have identified buildings that might have it and we are now seeking to ensure that. If I am wrong, I will address it in a letter, but I believe that local authorities have now come up with definitive figures on that. Interim measures will be in place while or until the cladding is removed, and this will be a matter for the local fire and rescue services to advise on and determine. It would certainly include the 24-hour presence of safety wardens, a ban on the use of car parks, and so on. We are obviously in discussions with local authorities on measures that need to be taken and, as I say, I think we have identified all the buildings. I hope that that addresses all the points raised, but if I have missed any I shall certainly address them in a letter.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, on 14 June it will be unbearably painful for everybody who was involved. I should declare an interest as my daughter, seven weeks after a caesarean section, was called in. She worked that night as an emergency medicine doctor. She had no doubt that she had to go in as something major was going on.
The Government are saying never again. This year, or next year, we may be thinking of it—everyone will this year—but in decades on it will be emblazoned on the memory of every survivor and everyone who was bereaved, although the rest of the country may have forgotten. I just wonder whether the Government have given any consideration to discussing with Grenfell United and others—not now when it is so raw, but in the future—about marking the day as a national fire safety day, whereby the whole country will be expected to test their fire alarms, carbon monoxide alarms, and evacuation procedures. We would get into a national pattern and once a year make sure that in every workplace, every residence—everywhere that people are—they remember that fire safety is paramount. Some schools I know in the area have upped their evacuation procedures since this happened, but I offer it as a suggestion.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for those points, and I am sure that the whole House would want me to thank, through her, her daughter for the assistance that she offered. I reiterate what I said on Grenfell United and its work, as well as that of the entire community.
In relation to 14 June this year, the community has wanted it recognised in a low-key way, if I can put it like that. We want to talk to the community about how they feel it is best remembered one year on. That is important. I shall certainly take away ideas brought forward by the noble Baroness to ensure that we do not forget about fire safety and the lessons learned. Perhaps in the same spirit, in terms of the future of Grenfell Tower itself, it is important for the community to lead on what happens in years to come. I am sure that it will regard this as something we never want to forget, and nor should we.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
I welcome the Minister saying that action in the case of the private sector had not been ruled out. That should send a very important signal to the private sector that there needs to be action.
In the Statement I think I heard the Minister say that he thought the local authority had identified all the private property. If that is the case, surely the electorates in the area—the people who live in areas where these blocks exist—are entitled to know where those blocks are located whether they are in the public or private sector. My first question is whether that information will be made available to the general public.
Finally, there are a number of hotels nationally that are covered with what looks like the material we are talking about, but we simply do not know. What is happening in the case of those hotels with this material?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord for his comments, particularly his recognition that the Secretary of State is determined about remedial measures for private sector buildings. The position is that local authorities have powers to identify through one of the Housing Acts—I forget which one—the properties concerned in relation to cladding. In many cases, information is being made available through local authorities, using their powers. I think I am right, and will correct it in the letter if I am wrong, that we have had confirmation from all the local authorities that that work has been done.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
They are making the information available to the department. This brings me to the point that the noble Lord was pursuing as to whether we will make that information public. We have to consider whether that would be helpful in addressing the work we need to do, based on safety considerations, discussions with the fire services, and so on. Considerations of safety are paramount here; we do not want to cause concern for the people in the blocks involved by issuing public information in that way. Again, I will cover that in the letter if I may.
In relation to hotels, any buildings with this cladding and above the requisite height are brought within our consideration, whether they are in the private or public sector, whether they are housing, hospitals, and so on, as was referred to earlier. This job of work has to be done with every building that is above the requisite height and has the combustible ACM cladding that was identified at Grenfell.
Lord Faulks (Con)
I declare an interest as a resident of the borough, and a further interest in that my wife is a councillor for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. She is not a councillor concerned with any of the issues that arise from the inquiry, but she is extremely concerned on a personal level with all the issues that arise from Grenfell.
I am sure the Minister would agree that the Government have been extremely critical of local government throughout the period that has elapsed since the fire. That has been a narrative to which the Government and the Opposition have subscribed. There has been a significant counternarrative, of which the Minister may be aware, in a remarkable article written by Andrew O’Hagan in the London Review of Books.
I do not ask the Minister to come to any judgment about these matters at this stage. We have an inquiry, which has made a promising start under the skilful chairmanship of Sir Martin Moore-Bick. However, there is one unfortunate part of the Statement that deals with challenging the local authority. I respectfully suggest that we should not be rushing to judgment and that central government should assist not only local government but all other agencies in dealing with this terrible problem in the way that is most effective.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and understand his personal concerns and those of his wife. I could well understand somebody from the area having a particular concern.
The noble Lord referred to the article in the London Review of Books, which I confess not to having the privilege of reading, but I will do. He referred to criticism of local government in the Statement. The part the noble Lord must be referring to is setting up the independent task force at an early stage, which was asked to provide scrutiny and challenge to the council. That is a normal usage of words when such a task force is appointed, but I take the noble Lord’s point. I certainly agree with him that Sir Martin Moore-Bick has made a very good start on the inquiry, which will run its course, as will the police’s consideration of criminal charges; I must be very careful not to say anything in detail about either of those. I understand the position that he is coming from and will seek to read the relevant article to which he referred.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification on a number of issues so far. I seek responses to two issues that I think would benefit from further clarification.
First, there is a single sentence on page 4 of the Statement that says:
“Remediation work has started on two-thirds of buildings in the social housing sector”.
By implication, remediation work has not started on one-third of buildings in the social housing sector. Is the Minister in a position to explain why that is the case? Is there a list in the department as to which blocks we are talking about and which local authorities we are talking about, and why that remediation work has not yet started? What is the timescale for starting going to be, and what is the timescale for completion of that remediation work? The Minister may not be able to respond to all that today—to do so in a letter later would be fine—but is it possible to define what remediation work actually is? It is one thing to strip off cladding, which is dangerous, but replacing it with suitable cladding which is warm and will reduce people’s energy bills is clearly important. So I am not quite clear what remediation actually means.
Secondly, and very briefly, we have a date for the publication of the social housing Green Paper, which will be “by recess”. It would be helpful to the House if we knew when a debate would take place on the Green Paper. I hope that it will not just be the case of the Green Paper being published and then going out to consultation and the House itself not having the opportunity to debate it. I hope that, rather, time is allowed for a full debate on that Green Paper, because we have been waiting for it for many months.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that and shall seek to deal with the points that he has raised. On remediation, I do not disagree with him on the importance of ensuring that any appropriate measures take account of the need for proper insulation and ensuring that we meet our climate change targets, and so on—but the most important thing here is the target of ensuring that people are safe. That is the remediation that we are talking about. That work in relation to the public sector has started on two-thirds of buildings. In relation to the other third, interim measures will be in place; for example, 24/7 security workers will be there to ensure that fire wardens are there.
I shall seek to cover the point on the timescale in a letter, if I may, with some more detail that the noble Lord asked for. One reason why the work might not have started on one-third of the buildings is that it may displace tenants—so full account must be taken of that. Suffice it to say, appropriate interim measures will be agreed with fire and rescue authorities in relation to those that have not had work started on them yet.
The noble Lord asked for a debate on the social housing Green Paper, and I hope that we can accommodate that. Of course, there are means available to the Liberal Democrats and others, too, and I am sure that somehow we will make sure that there is proper consideration of this important Green Paper. One reason for the delay to which the noble Lord refers is that we were very keen to talk to people, through Grenfell United and others in the community, to learn about particular points that they may feel needed addressing in relation to the social sector—points that have been made in relation to dealing with complaints, and so on, that arise. That is one reason that it was felt appropriate to take that into account in working through the Green Paper.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and, in particular, its acknowledgement of the anger felt by many in the area and many survivors. It says that it is,
“essential that people living in buildings like Grenfell Tower are not only safe but they feel the state understands their lives and works for them”.
I do not know whether the Minister read the Observer yesterday—just to add to his reading list—but there were some very moving interviews in it, including with a survivor called Mouna El-Ogbani. One of the things she said really jumped out at me. She talked about,
“how we were treated by the government, as if we are nothing .… It’s just box-ticking for them. They don’t look at us as humans, only as numbers”.
That suggests that the people of Grenfell do not feel that the state understands their lives and still do not feel that the state is really working for them. I welcome what the Minister said about talking to people around Grenfell about the forthcoming Green Paper, but what will the Government do now to ensure that both Grenfell survivors and social tenants generally feel that the state understands their lives and works for them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness for some very valid points and for her general welcoming of the Statement, which refers to the anger felt by the community—an anger that we can all understand—and the fact that people feel that the state is not on their side. This is something that we must seek to put right and it is one element of the social housing Green Paper on which we can all come together and discuss how it is taken forward. I did not have the privilege of reading the Observer yesterday. The Sunday Times also had some very good articles on the Grenfell situation and on ensuring, as the noble Baroness said, that people feel that they are humans, not numbers. Whenever I have spoken to anybody from the Grenfell community, that message comes across loud and clear. I have seen the hours and hard work that people from all parts of the community have been putting in—not least civil servants—and the anguish that it has been causing them. I hope that that helps to convince people that we really do care about the people of Grenfell. The important thing is that we carry this forward and that nothing like this ever happens again, and I know that the House is united on that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that preserving life and saving life is just as important whether you live in Southampton, Sheffield or Sunderland. If so, then why are the Government not committing to making the retrofitting of sprinklers mandatory in tower blocks and finding the funding for that nationally, as advocated and recommended by the Royal Institute of British Architects expert fire safety group, set up after the Grenfell fire?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord makes some valid points about the importance of a national response, whether it is Southampton, Sheffield, Sunderland or Carlisle. He is absolutely right. In that context, I should say that we keep very much in contact with the devolved Administrations as well, to ensure that we are joined up on this. The noble Lord referred to a particular report that recommended retrofitting, but, as I have indicated, that was not the recommendation of the Hackitt review. The Hackitt review said that this was not a silver bullet and shied away from recommending compulsory retrofitting. I have said that it is open to local authorities to fit them and to ask us to use financial flexibilities where they can make an appropriate case for it, because the £400 million is specifically meant for the removal and replacement of combustible cladding. In other situations, if the local authority wants to make a case for retrofitting, the department will certainly look at it.
Yemen
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place on the reports of an imminent attack on Hodeidah port in Yemen. The Statement is as follows:
“Reports have circulated for some time of a possible assault on either Hodeidah or Hodeidah port. Information at the beginning of last weekend, including from troop movements, suggested that such an attack might be imminent. In view of our responsibilities to aid agencies, DfID issued the following statement based on that information:
‘We are doing everything we can through diplomatic channels to discourage an assault on Hodeidah. However despite these actions, a military assault now looks imminent. The Emiratis have informed us today that they will now give a 3-day grace period for the UN [and their partners] to leave the city. Please take all precautions necessary to prepare for this and let us know if there is anything we can do to assist you in any way. We are thinking of you and your staff at this very difficult time’.
That is the email that was reprinted in the Guardian today.
The Government are and have been concerned for some time about the potential impact of any assault on the city and port of Hodeidah, and have made their concerns clear to the Saudi and Emirati Governments. The UN assesses that an attack on Hodeidah could displace up to 350,000 people and leave hundreds of thousands of Yemenis without access to basic goods or healthcare. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Saudi and Emirati counterparts over the weekend, and we are in close touch with the UN humanitarian co-ordinator and the UN special envoy.
The majority of Yemen’s food and fuel imports enter through Hodeidah and Saleef ports, and it is crucial that humanitarian and commercial imports continue to flow through the port. We urge all parties to facilitate access for essential imports of food, fuel and medical supplies into the country, including through Hodeidah. As with all aspects of the conflict, all parties must respect international humanitarian law and protect civilians.
No attack has yet taken place. Accordingly, we encourage all sides urgently to de-escalate and engage in good faith in the political process. The UN special envoy has previously expressed concern that conflicts in Hodeidah could take peace off the table ‘in a single stroke’. It is essential that the UN special envoy be given the time he needs to facilitate a negotiated solution that avoids conflict in the city, and we support his efforts to do so.
It is important to recall the wider conflict. The conflict in Yemen is now in its fourth year. Houthi rebels took the capital by force in 2014 and displaced the legitimate Government of Yemen. The Saudi-led coalition action is designed to facilitate the restoration of effective governance. The Houthis have consistently failed to adhere to UN Security Council resolutions, including by launching missile attacks against Saudi Arabia. They have prevented access to humanitarian supplies, which has led to significant damage to civilians, and have acted to prevent vital vaccinations.
We have been clear that there can be no military solution to the conflict. We continue to encourage all parties to show restraint, to return to negotiations and to engage in the UN-led political process in good faith, to work towards a comprehensive political settlement”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to this Urgent Question. Martin Griffiths, the UN special envoy, has been holding talks with all sides to try to broker a peace settlement, and was expected to report to the Security Council on his efforts on 18 June. As the Statement says, he says that any attack on Hodeidah by the UAE would,
“in a stroke, take peace off the table”.
Does the Minister agree with Martin Griffiths’ assessment, and if so, what action did the Government take to prepare for the emergency session of the Security Council taking place as we speak? If the Government did prepare, what did they expect to come out of the Security Council meeting with regard to stopping the planned UAE assault and keeping peace on track?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I assure the noble Lord and the House that we continue to support UN special envoy Martin Griffiths. As the noble Lord may be aware, the he met with Emirati officials on 10 June and pressed again for prioritising the political track. In this regard, the noble Lord is also correct that the UN Security Council is in session—but, as he will be aware, it is a closed session. On the efforts that the United Kingdom Government have taken to avert any kind of action on Hodeidah, we remain convinced that a political solution is required. That is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spent this weekend directly contacting his counterparts in both the Emirati and UAE Governments, as well as in the Government of Saudi Arabia.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am pleased to hear that the Government are doing all they can to avoid such an attack—which, as we have heard, would be catastrophic. However, what assessment have the Government made of the likely impact on civilians, including displacement and civilian casualties? Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the UN’s assessment on civilian deaths? I believe the Minister said 250,000. In addition, will the UK review its support—including arms sales and political support—to the coalition led by the Saudis and the UAE, if an attack on the port goes ahead that has a disproportionate effect on civilians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Taking the noble Baroness’s final question, any support we provide, including support to the Saudis and Emiratis extended by the United Kingdom, is kept under review. Of course, she will also be aware that the litmus test remains that any action must be in line with international humanitarian law.
On the specific issue of whether my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is aware—of course, he is central. As I have already said, he has been talking to his counterparts in both the UAE and Saudi Arabia. I go back to the point raised in the Statement that the UN has already assessed that an attack on Hodeidah could displace up to 350,000 people and leave hundreds of thousands of Yemenis without basic requirements such as food and healthcare.
The noble Baroness will also be aware that the United Kingdom Government stand with the Yemeni people. We have been at the forefront of providing support. In April we also announced a further £170 million in support for essential healthcare and other requirements. I stress, as all noble Lords are aware, that Hodeidah is the gateway to providing much of the relief and humanitarian assistance that is required. It is the responsibility of both sides to ensure that that access continues. The Houthis, who currently control the port, are not without fault. They caused the crisis in the first instance by displacing the Government, and more recently have continued to exercise blockages of the port and have stopped certain shipments from taking place. Therefore, we implore all sides to ensure that a political settlement can prevail.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister not only for repeating the Answer to the Question but for the tone and the content of the Answer. Through him I also thank his right honourable friend Alistair Burt, the Minister of State for the Middle East and North Africa, for the “Dear Colleague” letter that we all received dated 8 June. It is very helpful and contains in the third-to-last paragraph some awful statistics about the scale of the humanitarian crisis in the Yemen, including the fact that more than 50% of the population of Yemen—17.8 million people —do not have reliable access to food and 8.4 million people face extreme food shortages. Is it not the case that the only traffic that passes through the port of Hodeidah at the moment is humanitarian aid—nothing else? Does the Minister agree that the use of starvation as a weapon of war is in breach of international humanitarian law? Would not an attack on this port be strong evidence of a breach of humanitarian law? If any UK-manufactured weapons and planes that we had sold to any member of the coalition were used in such an attack, how could we justify continuing to sell weapons to them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks, and I will of course convey to my right honourable friend the comments about his constructive letter. The noble Lord raised the dire humanitarian situation prevailing in Yemen. As I said in response to an earlier question, that is why we have been at the forefront of providing support. I share his concern, as do the UK Government, about the importance of keeping open Hodeidah port as a lifeline. Over the weekend, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary called once again for no action to be taken on Hodeidah port in order to keep open that vital channel. But let us put this in context. As I said earlier, the port is controlled by Houthi rebels, who at Hodeidah and elsewhere—including, for example, in Aden—have not missed an opportunity to intimidate UN ships. They have also used schools, hospitals and children as part of their activities in Yemen.
To answer the noble Lord’s specific question about weapons, I revert to what I said: we keep the situation under constant review and will ensure that we apply the litmus test that there are no serious violations of international humanitarian law. That point has been made to the Emiratis and the Saudis. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there was a judicial review of this situation. The judgment concluded that our risk-based assessments had,
“all the hallmarks of a rigorous and robust, multi-layered process of analysis carried out by numerous expert Government and military personnel, upon which the Secretary of State”—
this referred to the Secretary of State for International Trade—
“could properly rely”.
In other words, our measures were robust. However, the noble Lord raises important points about the use of such weapons. I assure him that, not just in this conflict but in conflicts elsewhere in the world, we keep the situation firmly under review.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, it would appear that the Arab coalition calculations are to strike a decisive blow against the Houthis. What discussions, if any, are being conducted with Iran in order to second-guess its reaction in regard to both Yemen and more regionally—and, if that happens to be the case, what has been the outcome of such discussions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises the important issue of Iran. He is quite right: it exerts great influence over and provides great support for the Houthi rebels. That is why we urge not just the two sides in this conflict but all regional players, including Iran, which supports the Houthis, to cease hostilities and work together towards ensuring that there is, first, a ceasefire, and then a political settlement for Yemen. We have heard the stark statistics about the unravelling humanitarian crisis. This is one of the biggest crises in the world and concerted action is required on all sides. All countries with influence over the different sides must take action now to avert a further crisis in that country.