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, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
The UK regularly discusses the violence in Cameroon with international partners, including France and the United States, and I welcome French support for the recent UK-Austria joint UN Human Rights Council statement about the deteriorating situation in Cameroon.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Southern Cameroons voted to join French Cameroon on the basis that they would be federated states equal in status, but this is clearly not what has happened. It is treated as a region made up of second-class citizens. The UK has a duty to Southern Cameroons to use all available instruments to find a solution to the growing crisis that takes into account the wishes of the people. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a delegation of Southern Cameroons to discuss possible solutions?
Harriett Baldwin
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the first question on the Order Paper, because this is a worsening crisis. The UK has been strongly engaged with our international partners to find a way forward. Of course, the UK respects the territorial integrity of Cameroon, but we also believe that, where there are calls for more autonomy in the south-west and north-west, the Government of Cameroon need to engage in an inclusive political dialogue, because the violence from both sides is creating a serious situation for civilians on the ground.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
In her discussions with her US counterparts about the worrying situation in Cameroon, has the Minister asked them about suggestions made that resources they have given to help the Cameroonian Government in the fight against terror and Boko Haram are being diverted, misused and used in attacks on some of the communities in Cameroon?
Harriett Baldwin
As I often find myself saying during questions, I am happy to be accountable for what the UK Government have been doing, and I can confirm that we have extensive discussions with the Government of Cameroon, who, as my right hon. Friend will know, are a partner with the international community in the fight against Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa in the north of the country. We also have discussions with international partners to find a way forward on the views expressed with increasing violence by those of a separatist tendency in the south-west and north-west provinces.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
One of my constituents is a member of the South Cameroonian diaspora and is deeply concerned about what is going on. A recent Amnesty report noted the presence of arbitrary arrest, torture in detention and the existence of secret and illegal detention facilities in Cameroon. Does the Minister agree that such activities are in stark violation of the Commonwealth Charter, and if so what efforts has she made to engage with Cameroon through the Commonwealth?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the range of different human rights violations and abuses noted in the statement which we were pleased to see 39 countries sign at the most recent UN Human Rights Council. Specifically on the Commonwealth, I can tell the House that Lord Ahmad, the Minister for the Commonwealth, wrote to the Commonwealth Secretary-General recently to share UK concerns about Cameroon and press for further Commonwealth engagement on the matter.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The UK’s aim is to be the largest G7 investor in Africa by 2022. Will any of that investment be going to Cameroon?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend states the UK’s policy aim to be an ambitious investor in African economies, and I can confirm that there are UK companies that invest in Cameroon; businesses are absolutely free to choose to do so. In terms of the political track, though, we are trying to engage with the Government of Cameroon—I spoke to the Prime Minister there recently—to encourage them to find a way forward in a political and inclusive dialogue that can address some of the concerns being raised.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I spent time in Cameroon in 2013 as a political volunteer with Voluntary Service Overseas, and it breaks my heart to see what is happening to that beautiful country today. It seems to me that there is a potent mix of contemporary challenges and the long tail of our own and, indeed, French colonial history. Can we take a two-pronged approach? Will our colleagues in the Department for International Development tackle the urgent crises involving displaced peoples and conflict, and will the Minister’s own office make a proper effort to secure a diplomatic solution?
Harriett Baldwin
As the right hon. Gentleman says, there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis. Earlier this year I authorised work by us, through UNICEF, to provide immediate humanitarian assistance. More than 400,000 people have been displaced in the crisis, and more than 30,000 have fled to Nigeria. DFID is doing programming work, and we are urging the Cameroon Government to allow humanitarian actors access to all parts of the country.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Last week, Human Rights Watch said:
“Government forces in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions have killed scores of civilians…and torched hundreds of homes over the past six months.”
How many more innocent victims need to be slaughtered for Cameroon to be suspended by the Commonwealth?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady is right: there have been human rights abuses and human rights violations on all sides in the conflict. Hospitals have been burnt and villages torched. We drew attention to a range of issues in a statement at the United Nations Human Rights Council, which the UK sponsored. Obviously the UK is a member of the Commonwealth, and our Commonwealth Minister has written to the Commonwealth Secretariat suggesting that it encourage discussions on this topic in future meetings.
Mr Speaker
Before we move to Question 2 and I call the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I hope that the whole House will want to join me in extending a warm welcome to Gareth Evans, QC, who served with great distinction as a Cabinet Minister in Australia from 1983 until 1996 under—if memory serves me—the Hawke and Keating Governments. As we have just been talking about human rights, let us not forget that he was a key architect of the United Nations’ responsibility to protect. We celebrate that achievement, and many people around the world, sir, will be thankful to you for your leadership on that front.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
It is a pleasure to interrupt a mammoth Cabinet meeting to enjoy the harmony and consensus for which the House is famous. [Laughter.]
The United Kingdom has long championed freedom of religion, but I think we should do more for the estimated 240 million Christians who face persecution for their faith around the world. I have therefore asked the Bishop of Truro to conduct a review, which I hope he will deliver in the summer.
Martin Vickers
The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of an Open Doors report which predicts a 14% increase in the persecution of Christians this year. It also says that North Korea is the most dangerous place in which to practise Christianity, where it is seen as a threat to the Communist regime. What work are the Government doing with such non-democratic countries to try to ease the persecution of the Christian community?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Open Doors report, which contains some stark statistics. It states, for example, that 80% of the people who suffer persecution for their religious belief are Christians. The most striking statement is that the vast majority are in the very poorest countries: this is not, on the whole, a problem affecting people who live in affluent countries.
My hon. Friend is right to mention that countries such as North Korea have been singled out. The purpose of the review is to ensure that we use all the UK’s diplomatic leverage to highlight these issues and put pressure on those regimes to change.
Victoria Prentis
The Open Doors report says that about 245 million Christians are suffering high levels of persecution in 73 countries. Where is the UK focusing our help?
Mr Hunt
I want to ensure that we exercise maximum influence where we have that influence. The striking thing about that report is that, notwithstanding the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made about North Korea, some of the worst offenders are in the middle east, notably Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and Somalia, where the population of Christians has fallen from 20% to around 5%. In many of those countries, we have big aid budgets and a lot of influence.
Alex Chalk
The UK has a proud history of standing up for the rights of minority faith groups, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. As the Secretary of State says, we have a budget of over £2 billion, which is being allocated to the middle east and Syria, where the situation is particularly appalling. How can we use that budget to protect Christians from the appalling persecution they are facing?
Mr Hunt
I pay tribute to the Department for International Development, which has allocated £12 million recently specifically to promote freedom of religious belief. The gist of my hon. Friend’s question is right—where we have a large aid budget, with countries such as Afghanistan, it is absolutely essential that we make it clear to the Government in those countries that we are expecting progress on freedom of religious belief. We need to remember that many of the worst conflicts in the world have happened because people of different religions have clashed, so promoting harmony between religions is one of the best long-term ways of promoting peace.
Paul Masterton
Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that often the persecution of Christians does not get the attention that it deserves—almost as though there was a bizarre hierarchy of victims, whereby they are not deserving of the same degree of attention as others? If we are serious about tackling freedom of religious belief and expression, we need to ensure that much more attention is given to some of the awful examples of persecution of Christians right around the world, and that the Government are not ashamed to step up and call it out.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right. I think it is fair to say that there has been some hesitation in the past in our embracing the issue of persecution of Christians—whether from a misguided concern about our history and the role of missionaries, I do not know—but now is the time when we have to put all that behind us and say that freedom of religious belief is an essential and indivisible part of freedom, full stop. The UK should always be on the right side of that issue.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Christians are among the most persecuted believers in the world, and clearly we have to do more to help. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about the work that he has commissioned. Are Christian women not often doubly persecuted, for both their religion and their gender? That needs looking at very closely as well; there needs to be more work around the world with Governments to tackle that problem.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I would widen the point even further, and say that women from all religions, not just Christian religions, are double victims. Where there is persecution of any religion, often women come off worst. I think the most inspiring example of courage in the face of that persecution is Nadia Murad, the recent Nobel peace prize winner, a Yazidi campaigner who suffered absolutely horrifically but is an inspiration to persecuted women all over the world.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Could the Government go one step further in contesting the persecution of Christians around the world by making it clear that Asia Bibi, who has been persecuted for many years for her faith, will be offered asylum in this country for herself and her family, should she wish to accept it?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in the Asia Bibi case, which I know is shared in all parts of this House. I reassure the hon. Lady that making sure that she is safe, and has somewhere safe to go, is a top priority for this Government. We have had numerous private discussions with the Pakistani Government about how to progress this issue. I do not want to go into the details of those discussions, but we are making progress and I am very hopeful that this will have a positive outcome.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Risca in my constituency has a large Egyptian Coptic church, to which many people travel every weekend to worship. Many of their family members and friends are subject to terrible persecution in Egypt and have been, as the Secretary of State knows, subject to terrorist acts. What reassurance can he give my constituents and those who travel to the Coptic church that everything is being done to stamp that out?
Mr Hunt
The atrocities suffered by the Copts are some of the very worst suffered by Christians anywhere, and there have been several examples of those in Egypt. However, the Egyptians are trying very hard to address these issues. They recently opened a brand-new cathedral, and that is a big step forward for any country in the middle east. We obviously want to encourage them on the journey.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is good that the Foreign Secretary has come to the peace zone—this Chamber—this morning.
China continues to be one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a Christian. Non-approved churches are being closed down and pastors are being jailed. How does he intend to strike the balance between valuing China as a post-Brexit trade partner and standing up for those people in China whose human rights are being abused because of their religion?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. Of course China is an important country with which we have critical relations in the world, but having those relations means that we have to be able to raise issues of concern when we meet our Chinese counterparts. That is what I did when I visited China in August last year and raised concerns about freedom of religion in Xinjiang province. We had the universal periodic review in November last year, and concerns were also raised at the 40th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. We will continue to raise those concerns with China at every opportunity.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The rules-based international system has made the world collectively massively safer and more prosperous than it has ever been before. This country played a major role in setting it up and we will always defend it, as we did when we held Russia to account after the terrible attack in Salisbury.
John Lamont
It has now been five years since the annexation of Crimea by Russia and since then Putin has repeatedly proved to be one of the greatest threats to the rules-based international order. The UK has led international efforts to try to make Russia see sense, and this has very much taken place online and in the media. With this in mind, will the Foreign Secretary join me in urging Members of Parliament to think twice about appearing on Russia Today, which remains a propaganda tool of the Russian state?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments; he could not be more right. It is incredibly important that when Russia does things such as invading neighbouring countries, as it did in Crimea, no one in this House should say things such as the Leader of the Opposition said, which is that Russia has more right on its side than Ukraine. That is quite wrong, and it is giving people permission to do that kind of thing again.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world today. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what the Government are doing to maintain an international focus on this and, in particular, what representations he has made to the Trump Administration in the United States on this crucial question?
Mr Hunt
We have been investing a huge amount in our global leadership on climate change, and we are the G20 country that has the biggest drop in emissions per unit of GDP. We are also bidding to host COP 26, which will be the next big climate change conference on the fifth anniversary of the Paris conference. We have a different view from that of the Trump Administration, and we are very open about that with them. It is all the more important that the countries that do not share their view and that think we have a responsibility to future generations should stand proud in our support for this vital agenda.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made powerful comments about the role of the United Kingdom as a network player in the international rules-based system. Will he tell the House a little bit about the work he has been doing with our European partners, especially after the Foreign Affairs Committee published its report about a year ago on how to look forward to working with our European partners, on supporting the international order and the international rules-based system that Britain played such an important part in building?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. In all the debates we have about Brexit—I have now met my counterparts in every EU country—the one thing that comes across loud and clear is that the part of the world that has suffered the most from not having adherence to a rules-based international order is Europe. That is why European countries say to us constantly that they want to continue to have their vital strategic and military relations with the United Kingdom, whatever the outcome of Brexit, and that they want Britain to play a strong and influential role in upholding the rules-based order across the world. That is what we will do.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The rules-based international order would be strengthened if countries were seen to be held accountable for adhering to the conclusions of the United Nations Human Rights Council. What steps are Ministers taking to hold Sri Lanka to account for its failure to bring to justice those who are guilty of perpetuating major human rights abuses?
Mr Hunt
This is something on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific has done an enormous amount of work through his contacts with the Sri Lankan Government. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue, not least because many members of the Sri Lankan community in this country have a great deal of concern about it. Overall, the picture in Sri Lanka is remarkably better than it was a decade ago. However, there will never be lasting peace unless there is justice and accountability for the things that went wrong.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Is it not a matter of the greatest regret that our most important ally, the United States, is in clear contravention of United Nations Security Council resolution 497 by recognising Israeli sovereignty claims over Golan? As annexation of territory is prohibited under international law, will the Foreign Secretary send a very strong message to the United States that the British House of Commons condemns unreservedly this breach of the rules-based order?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do that. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—we should never recognise the annexation of territory by force. That has been one of the great achievements since the founding of the United Nations. I do that with a very heavy heart, because Israel is an ally and a shining example of democracy in a part of the world where that is not common. We want Israel to be a success, and we consider it to be a great friend, but on this we do not agree.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
If we are to maintain a rules-based international order and strengthen it, the Foreign Secretary will agree that reciprocal arrangements for our constituents when they go abroad or when citizens of other countries come here are absolutely vital. Julie, the niece of my constituent, Deborah Pearson, was killed—murdered—by her ex-partner in Eilat in Israel at the end of 2015. I have raised this with the Foreign Secretary’s predecessors, but we are no further forward. We now know that the police were called five times, but they palmed her off, saying that she was a nuisance. She had 78 bruises on her body, and lost over a litre of blood. Will he meet me so that we can get justice for Julie and Deborah, my constituent?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. Obviously, our hearts go out to her constituent’s family over a truly terrible incident. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific is very, very happy to meet her and make sure that we are doing everything that we can.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming our distinguished and learned visitor, Gareth Evans, who continues to make a vital contribution, as he has throughout his career, to the concept of the rules-based world order? On that subject, we must note that it is six months to the day since Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered by Saudi agents in their embassy in Istanbul. The greatest tribute that we can pay to him today is not to look back at his death but to look at the murder of innocent children in Yemen whose lives he tried to save with his journalism and which matter just as much as his did.
I realise that I have not asked a question, so let me say this. In that light, what possible justification can the Foreign Secretary offer for the Saudi air strike last week on the Save the Children-supported hospital in Kitaf, which was clearly marked on the Saudi no-strike list? The strike killed three adults and four children, including an innocent child aged just eight years?
Mr Hunt
Let me tell my opposite number that that is exactly why we are doing everything that we possibly can to try to create peace in Yemen. It is why I am the first western Foreign Minister to meet the Houthi side, even though they were the ones that were the cause of the conflict when it began four years ago. I am the first western Foreign Minister to visit Yemen to see where we could progress the Stockholm accords. I am not prepared to let Labour pose as the great humanitarians, as their foreign policy is to support an evil regime in Venezuela that stops its own people accessing food and medicine—it just does not work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry
Does the Foreign Secretary understand the frustration we feel in this House when time and again over the last four years, including on Jamal Khashoggi, we get the same response from the Government? They regret what happened, they want a proper investigation by the Saudis, they promise real consequences and nothing ever happens. There is no investigation, there are no consequences and bin Salman carries on with complete impunity.
I ask the Foreign Secretary yet again what it will take for this Government finally to tell bin Salman that he cannot keep getting away with murder.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Lady just is not reflecting what has happened. Thanks to action by this Government and other Governments, a judicial process started in Saudi Arabia on 3 January and we are sending observers. We have a UN special rapporteur, Agnes Callamard, who is responsible for looking at extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and she is leading an independent international inquiry.
When I became Foreign Secretary—the right hon. Lady was shadow Foreign Secretary then, too—we did not have a peace process in Yemen, and now we do, which is thanks to the UK and the huge diplomatic effort we have been making.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
On 4 February, I attended a Lima Group meeting in Ottawa at the invitation of the Canadian Foreign Minister. At the meeting I spoke to the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Brazil about the crisis in Venezuela. I have also spoken recently to Chilean Foreign Minister Ampuero and Peruvian Vice-Foreign Minister de Zela. We continue to work closely with the Lima Group, the Organisation of American States, the United States and like-minded European and international partners to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Venezuela.
Alec Shelbrooke
The Labour party and its leadership have an unforgivable record of defending the Maduro regime, which is so toxic that people have started leaving the party. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that this Government condemn the human rights abuses and the regression of democracy, and will continue to promote freedom and democracy and offer support to surrounding countries that are dealing with the refugee crisis as a direct result of this abhorrent regime?
Sir Alan Duncan
I can give assurance to my hon. Friend on all those things. We are working closely with all international partners to find a resolution to the fact that the Maduro regime has completely bankrupted his country and made it destitute to the point where 3.6 million people have fled to neighbouring countries.
Mark Menzies
Throughout my visits to the region, it has become abundantly clear that the humanitarian situation in Venezuela is having a huge impact across Latin America. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to address the consequences of the continued political humanitarian abuse?
Sir Alan Duncan
May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on all his work in the region as an effective trade envoy? He has built up some very good relationships to our benefit.
We are, of course, working with the Department for International Development to deliver a humanitarian aid package of over £6.5 million, on top of the multilateral activity to which we always contribute in such a significant way.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
In its declaration last month, the Lima Group called on the UN high commissioner for human rights to publish a report on human rights abuses in Venezuela. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the United Nations about this? Although the UN has been vociferous about the impact of sanctions on the regime, it has been strangely silent on the curtailment of the freedom of the press and other human rights abuses in Venezuela.
Sir Alan Duncan
I am delighted to hear an Opposition Member raise the topics of the abuse of human rights and freedom, on which we have been speaking very loudly and on which we are working very deeply with the Lima Group. The fundamental issue is Venezuela’s poverty. People cannot get basic goods, and the fact that President Maduro is blocking aid from getting into his own country is so contemptible that, on both sides of the House, we should all speak with one voice in condemning it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given the continuing humanitarian and political crisis in Venezuela, does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that both the Lima Group and other Government agencies in both North America and South America additionally press President Maduro to ensure that food supplies are delivered to the people of Venezuela?
Sir Alan Duncan
Yes, indeed. All countries across the world have to do their bit. Canada and the European Union international contact group are doing a lot. We all have to work together, and one of the most concerning developments at the moment is that President Maduro is trying to strip Juan Guaidó of the immunity he enjoys as a member of the National Assembly. We in this House should send out a very clear message today that that would be utterly unacceptable and that Juan Guaidó is the interim President we recognise.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Since 2016, Colombia has made significant progress in its peace process; the FARC is now a political party and the last elections were the safest in decades. I reaffirmed our full support for the peace process with the Colombian Foreign Minister on 4 February in Ottawa. The UK has expressed concern to the Colombian Government over delays in the transitional justice system, which is a critical part of the peace process. We continue to support the process through the conflict stability and security fund.
Christian Matheson
I understand that there were a couple more paramilitary killings last week. Did the Minister read the report by Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur, who has said that the national landscape continues to be plagued by violence, particularly gender-based violence? Will the Minister put the problem of the continuing structural gender-based violence in Colombia on the agenda for the November conference on the preventing sexual violence initiative?
Sir Alan Duncan
Yes, I certainly will, because preventing sexual violence against women is one of the UK’s human rights priorities in Colombia. Indeed, Foreign Office officials recently met the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) to discuss that. I hope that illustrates once again the extent to which we are really working together across the House to tackle these vexed problems at all levels, in every way we can.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I visited Saudi Arabia most recently on 2 March. We have a long history of close co-operation in support of regional stability, alongside frank conversations on areas of concern, including human rights.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. A UN human rights expert has said that the court proceedings relating to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi have been secret and fall short of international standards, and it was reported only today that Saudi Arabia is paying his family so that they continue to show restraint in their public statements. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on any conclusions that he has reached from the promised credible investigation into the murder?
Mr Hunt
I can assure the hon. Lady that we have been clear from the outset that what happened to Khashoggi was fundamentally against our values, and that there has to be full accountability and a transparent judicial process that meets international standards. That process has started and we continue to monitor it; we are sending observers to see what happens in the trial process. We continue to exercise our strong views on the issue, in private and in public.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Mr Hunt
Absolutely not. I raised the issue of detained women campaigners when I was recently in Saudi Arabia, and the Prime Minister has raised the case of Raif Badawi, the blogger who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes. The interesting thing about the report, if it is true, is that it was commissioned by the King, who wants to understand what is going on in the prisons, to ensure that they meet international standards of humanitarian justice.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that in the past week three women human rights activists have been released conditionally on bail in Saudi Arabia? What are the Government doing to press for the release and discharge of other women in prison?
Mr Hunt
I had not heard that report, but it would be excellent news. I can reassure the right hon. Lady that I raised the issue when I met the Saudi Foreign Minister on my recent visit. We have asked to have access to the trials, but that has been denied. We continue to follow the case very carefully and press it at every opportunity.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
We are concerned by the recent violence in Israel and Gaza, and we welcome the Egyptian efforts to de-escalate the situation. At the UN Security Council on 26 March, the UK condemned the rocket attacks, which injured two British-Israeli citizens. We regret the loss of life, including the death of four children in protests over the weekend—mercifully, fears of major violence were not realised. Our diplomats in the region urge all parties to continue to demonstrate restraint in the tense days that lie ahead.
Guto Bebb
I thank the Minister for his response and associate myself with his comments. Last month, more than 60 rockets were fired from Gaza towards Israel. Two were intercepted above Tel Aviv, while another destroyed a residence in central Israel that was occupied by a British-Israeli family, resulting in injuries, including to a six-month-old baby. What steps are the Government taking to support our ally, Israel, as it fights this terrorist attack on the country?
Mark Field
I think we all recognise that Israel is an important strategic partner for the United Kingdom and that we need to collaborate actively on issues of defence, security and intelligence. In October 2018, the Government launched the UK-Israel counter-terrorism dialogue to share best practice and insights on a wide range of capabilities. We are now committed to holding such a dialogue annually, which will help to complement the already strong operational relationship between our countries.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Mark Field
There are two issues at stake, so I shall go into some detail, if I may. We abstained on that UNHRC resolution calling for an inquiry on the basis that the substance of such a resolution must be impartial and balanced. We could not support such an investigation when the resolution refused explicitly to call for an investigation into non-state actors such as Hamas. I should also say—this relates to the hon. Gentleman’s Question 21—that we have stressed and will continue to stress the importance of protecting and delivering medical services, particularly in Gaza. As recently as 28 March, the Department for International Development announced a new £2 million package for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which will contribute to the delivery of urgently needed supplies.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
What action has my right hon. Friend taken, given that Hamas is organising for women and children to go to the border between Gaza and Israel and therefore provoking violent confrontations?
Mark Field
Clearly, we want to try to avoid violent confrontation at all costs. As I said in my earlier answer, mercifully the major concerns about violence at the protests this weekend, which we felt could have been a lot more serious than they were, were not realised. My hon. Friend will recognise that we do all we can on the ground to try to defuse some of the tensions. That is an important part of our diplomatic work, which we do with other countries as well, of course.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Ind)
I utterly condemn the latest rocket attacks that the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) raised. We know that Hamas is given tens of millions of dollars a year by Iran to fund these terrorist acts. What steps are the Government taking to stop the Iranian regime funding barbaric middle east terror groups such as Hamas?
Mark Field
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. She will recognise that Hamas is one of a number of Iranian proxies in the region. Our position is that Hamas must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously agreed and signed agreements. We condemn Hamas and other terrorist groups for firing rockets into Israel from not only Gaza but elsewhere, in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). Those groups must permanently end such attacks against both civilians and defence forces.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
We regard the UK as a soft power superpower, and this is widely recognised in independent international surveys and reports. [Interruption.] A few more tongue twisters and I will be anyone’s! This is the sort of thing you want to do at 11 in the morning, not 11 o’clock at night. The FCO vigorously continues to support the UK’s soft power through the funding of, among others, Chevening scholarships, the British Council and the BBC World Service.
Mark Field
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK has an unbreakable connection to the Commonwealth and the democratic, inclusive values that it upholds—we discussed earlier the importance of maintaining a rules-based international order, particularly in these uncertain times. The Commonwealth also proudly represents some of the fastest-growing economies and accounts for one fifth of global trade. We shall of course continue to work closely with all members of the Commonwealth to ensure that it realises its full potential in that regard, and to ensure a more sustainable, prosperous and secure future.
Craig Mackinlay
Royal Yacht Britannia played a key role in promoting UK trade around the globe during her years of active service. More than 50 Members of this House believe that such a role would be enhanced post Brexit and that a new national yacht would help to promote our international humanitarian role. Will the Government now support our campaign in this brave endeavour?
Mark Field
I fear that I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend, who represents a coastal constituency. As a regular visitor to Broadstairs in his constituency, I know what a wonderful part of the country it is, but I have to inform him that there are no plans to commission a new royal yacht for the royal family.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we include in soft power the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Will the Minister help us to breathe life into those organisations so that we can get meaningful dialogue on the issues that really worry us, such as the rights of Christians, including the persecution of Christians in Pakistan? Why are we not having that sort of debate here?
Mark Field
I say to the hon. Gentleman that, with regard to the CPA and the IPU, we do. I appreciate that, for many Members who wish to get more engaged, travelling is obviously difficult because of the nature of the electoral arithmetic at the moment. May I also point out the incredibly hard work that goes on at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, particularly with regard to getting constitutional change in many parts of the world? Many of those programmes are done on a cross-party basis, which provides a very positive stance for UK democracy abroad and will, hopefully, enhance aspects of the soft power to which he refers.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Can the Minister tell us what impact Brexit has had on the UK’s reputation, and whether a no-deal Brexit will be better or worse for that reputation?
Mark Field
Ironically, a recent UN report showed the UK rising up the happiness league, but I appreciate that some of these surveys cannot be relied on too much. On a serious note, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and it is a concern for all of us as Foreign Office Ministers who work abroad. It is very easy for us in this country to be a little bit self-deprecating about Britain and its brand abroad, but I am always very struck—certainly in Asia and the Pacific, and, with my new responsibilities, in the middle east—by just how respected the UK and its brand are. Those countries recognise that there are some uncertainties at the moment, but that view will continue.
Stephen Gethins
I am glad that the Minister recognises the challenges, but as he might have said in “Jaws”, “You’re going to need a bigger yacht.” We have heard Pascal Lamy talk about the UK’s reputation being much diminished and Jürgen Maier from Siemens talk about the country’s tremendous reputation as an economic powerhouse being wrecked. We need to address that, as it is not good for any of us. Will the Minister recognise that before this Government take us down the route of a disastrous no deal?
Mark Field
It is incumbent on all of us not to talk the country down in what we appreciate are difficult times. We want to see progress—significant progress—in this regard. I am struck by the fact that we are experiencing slightly hyperbolic, frenzied activity in this House and, dare I say it, among some commentators. As I have said, what I see on the ground is that we have been respected for many, many decades and that a huge amount of work goes on, not least in the soft power area. I am sure that that will go from strength to strength in the years to come.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Lord Ricketts, the former head of the Foreign Office and an expert in soft power, said last month:
“The Foreign Secretary is making a big mistake if he thinks this…blame game over Brexit is going to change any minds in Europe.”
Does the Government accept that Lord Ricketts is right, and that the only ones responsible for this Brexit mess are this Government alone?
Mark Field
I had a chance to speak directly with Lord Ricketts in a radio studio a week ago. He recognises, I think, the difficulties that we face in dealing with the Brexit negotiations. I have been out not just to Brussels, but to the OECD in Paris recently. Again, I was very struck, as I worked with counterparts, by the fact that there is an important agenda, and that many European countries recognise the importance of the UK. We need to have the strongest of relationships. Clearly there are uncertainties about the precise nature of our departure from the European Union, but that is a part of it.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend commit to speaking with his other partners in the Government to try to obtain more funding for the GREAT campaign, which plays an extraordinarily important role in promoting the UK—and our products and companies—globally?
Mark Field
The GREAT campaign is a fantastic success. Part of my role is to deal with communications, representing the Foreign Office on a cross-departmental basis. We recognise the importance of this particular campaign and work strongly on it, particularly with the Department for International Trade.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We are late, but if colleagues were in a caring, sharing mood, and were prepared to consider each other, we could get through a little more.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Thank you so much, Mr Speaker; I am ever grateful.
As I have previously made clear to the House, the situation in Catalonia is a matter for Spain. We remain clear that questions related to the issue of Catalan independence should be resolved within the proper constitutional and legal channels of Spain.
Marion Fellows
It is everyone’s responsibility—including this Government’s—to uphold human rights. Far from becoming the major global player that Brexiteers imagine, the UK appears more and more irrelevant on the world stage. Is it the case that the UK Government are not seeking to uphold self-determination for Catalonia because they need Spain’s help in further Brexit negotiations?
Sir Alan Duncan
No, it is because we uphold the rule of law, as we have discussed earlier in questions. We uphold the rule of law here with Scotland and we uphold it in Spain with regards to Catalonia. Certain accusations that Spain somehow has political prisoners are absurd. It does not have political prisoners; it has prisoners who happen to be political.
Richard Graham
Tolerance of people of different faiths and sexualities is incredibly important for the promotion of human rights. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share the disappointment of many that tomorrow the kingdom of Brunei—a key Commonwealth partner and long-term ally of the UK—is introducing the death penalty for homosexuality?
Mr Speaker
No, no, no—sit down. The question is about Catalonia. [Interruption.] Well, I have been advised, and I am afraid that the question did not strike me as in order. We must move on. The hon. Gentleman can try again later.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
The UK remains fully committed to helping to promote Lebanon’s security and stability. The Prime Minister conveyed that message to Prime Minister Hariri as recently as 24 February. We provide direct support to Lebanon of over $200 million a year. These funds help to secure borders, to provide the opportunity of education and to strengthen service delivery.
Bob Stewart
What specific security assistance are Her Majesty’s Government providing on the borders of Lebanon?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as I know he takes these matters extremely seriously. We have invested more than £60 million in Lebanese security since 2012. By 2020, we shall have trained over 11,000 soldiers in specialist and essential infantry skills and techniques for urban and rural security operations across the board. This assistance includes significant support for the land border regiments, and has helped to secure Lebanon’s border with Syria for the first time in its history.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Some 1.25 million Christians have fled Syria to go to Lebanon. Will the Minister confirm what help he has been able to give to those Christian refugees?
Mark Field
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes these matters extremely seriously, and the House greatly respects him for that. Many of those refugees, and some Palestinian Christians, have been in Lebanon in waves going back 20 or 30 years. Obviously, a huge amount of Department for International Development work goes on in the area. We recognise that many people have been there for quite some time and will be there for quite some time to come, and we therefore try to enhance their economic opportunities. The UK has played a leading part in trying to ensure tariff-free access to EU markets for many of those individuals.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
Lesotho continues to experience political fragility and democratic and development challenges. Together with the Southern African Development Community, we are working to support the implementation of governance reforms.
Ian C. Lucas
Prime Minister Tom Thabane and Minister John Maseribane both admitted to Channel 4 News that they had received payments into their personal bank accounts from Mr Arron Banks. Will the Minister meet me to discuss governance in Lesotho, its current position in the Commonwealth and the advice that she is giving to British companies operating in Lesotho about the Bribery Act 2010?
Harriett Baldwin
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, and the strong links that exist between people in Wales and people in Lesotho. Of course, I am always delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. Regarding the allegations made on Channel 4, we urge anyone with evidence to give it to the appropriate authorities.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who stepped down last week. He served twice as Minister for the Middle East and was immensely respected and liked both in the Foreign Office, which does not happen with all Ministers, and in this House for his integrity, wisdom and kindness.
Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran. I know that I speak for the whole House in hoping that the Iranian authorities will see beyond the differences between our two countries and allow this innocent woman to come home and join her family.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Today is the 107th day of İmam Sis’s hunger strike. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and I visited him in Newport East this weekend. He is one of 1,000 Kurds on hunger strike around the world, demanding that Abdullah Öcalan is allowed access to his lawyer and removed from solitary confinement. Turkey is a NATO member and has the highest number of MPs and journalists in prison in the world, following—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but this is an abuse of the House. What we want is a one-sentence question with a question mark at the end of it. Lots of other colleagues want to take part. One question, Mr Russell-Moyle.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Has the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with Turkey, and will he send representations to the Council of Europe following the Welsh Assembly’s resolution?
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
The UK was one of the funders of what is known as a parallel voter tabulation exercise, which is like an extensive BBC exit poll. It gave a result that was consistent with the officially declared results, and our Prime Minister called President Buhari to congratulate him on his re-election. However, we are aware of various reports from both our observers and others, and a strong stance against election-related violence was taken yesterday in my meetings with Nigerian opposition leaders, where I emphasised that concerns must be taken through the judicial process and that the independence of the judiciary in Nigeria is incredibly important.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said in respect of Cameroon, if Brunei does not abandon its barbaric proposals to whip or stone LGBT+ individuals to death, will the Minister of State guarantee that the Government will ask their counterparts on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to consider Brunei’s immediate suspension?
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I raised with the Bruneian Government my concerns over the introduction of the hudud punishment most recently in a letter to the deputy Foreign Minister on Friday 29 March, and I discussed the imminent introduction of the Sharia penal code when I was in Brunei last August. Our high commissioner Richard Lindsay in Bandar Seri Begawan has also received assurances that both common law and the sharia penal code will operate in parallel for all nationals and residents, including British citizens, and be the primary means of administering justice in Brunei. We will continue to lobby to ensure that any British citizens in Brunei will be subject to common law rather than the penal code.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Mark Field
I reiterate the earlier comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We welcome Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of a new resolution of the UNHRC in March, which continues its reconciliation and accountability commitments. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend speaks for many of her constituents who come from the Tamil part of Sri Lanka. As a penholder, the UK has played a leading role in trying to bring the parties together, but while we accept that positive steps have been taken, much faster progress is needed. We shall continue to urge Sri Lanka to implement fully its commitments under UNHRC resolutions 30/1 and 34/1.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman is right; Iran’s human rights record remains a matter of serious concern. On 17 December, the UK co-sponsored a UN resolution on human rights in Iran, highlighting its failure to meet a whole range of international obligations in that area.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and reassure him that we are doing everything we can. We summoned the Zimbabwean ambassador to the UK to register our concerns about the human rights violations and abuses that were noted in the January fuel protests. I travelled to southern Africa and met a range of neighbours to encourage them to send the same message as Commonwealth countries to the Government of Zimbabwe. If the Government of Zimbabwe would only follow through with the things they have said they will do, we would not be in this situation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Hunt
Yes we can, and indeed we will. This November, we will host a major conference on the prevention of sexual violence as a tool of conflict. I have met Nadia Murad and Dr Denis Mukwege, the Nobel peace prize winners who have campaigned on this issue. Whether it is Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq or Burma, we are clear that this has to become an international taboo.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Mark Field
If I may, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). We are doing a lot, as a penholder, and playing a leading role in trying to bring parties together. We are pleased to see that Sri Lanka is co-sponsoring a new resolution at the Human Rights Council in March in Geneva, but I appreciate that we need to see some genuine progress, and I very much hope that the international community can come together and bring that about.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I know that the Foreign Secretary and I will both welcome the House’s decision last night to reject an EU customs union. What assessment has he made of the foreign policy implications of such an arrangement, were it ever entered into?
Mr Hunt
I think people would see it as very curious that a country that voted to take back control was choosing to cede control in a number of areas of vital national interest. I think they would also be concerned that it would not resolve the national debate on Brexit, because many of the people who voted for Brexit would not see this as delivering a true Brexit.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State recognise the incredible action by thousands of young people across our country in striking for action on climate change? Will he not only recognise that we are facing a global emergency on climate change, but declare a national emergency on climate change, just as the Labour party has done?
Mr Hunt
I very much welcome young people being involved in climate change issues; I do not welcome quite so much their missing school to do so. I would say that we are making a lot of progress in this country—in fact, I think we have done more than anyone else in the G20 on climate change—but it is not enough. As a global community, we still need to do more, which is why we want to host COP 26 and galvanise the world to take more action.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, already, another seven journalists have been killed in the course of their work this year, coming on top of the 80 who died last year? Two of those were in Mexico, which is one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalism. Will he say what more can be done to press the Mexican Government to take action?
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, and indeed for raising it consistently. He is absolutely right: Mexico is the most dangerous country in the world in which to be a journalist. The Mexican Government have taken action, and we are in touch with them closely about what they are doing. However, we need to draw the world’s attention to this issue. According to the latest figures I have seen, 348 journalists were arrested or detained last year for doing their job. That is why this summer, jointly with Canada, we will be hosting the first ever international conference on media freedom at ministerial level.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
What steps is the Foreign Office taking to guarantee the human rights of people in Sudan, especially since the President declared a year-long crisis in Sudan?
Harriett Baldwin
I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to raise this, because it is a very serious situation, and we are engaging strongly with the Government of Sudan on the issues he raises. Most recently, I had a phone call with the Foreign Minister of Sudan in which I particularly drew attention to the women who were due to be flogged. I am very pleased to hear that they have subsequently been released.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Tomorrow, Brunei introduces a penal code that includes death for apostasy, death for adultery and stoning to death for homosexuality. I suppose at this point I should declare my interest on all three counts. Very much more seriously, what are we going to do with our super soft power to make it clear just how much this is a total violation of the standards we should share?
Mark Field
We have made and will continue to make representations. Obviously there are grave concerns about the nature of the sharia penal code, if it were brought into play. As I mentioned earlier, we are raising concerns about the introduction of the hudud punishment. We have a strong bilateral relationship—underpinned of course by our military presence in Brunei, as my hon. Friend will be aware—and we hope that will mitigate the potential impact of the sharia penal code on UK forces, associated civilians and their dependants.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
What pressure can the Foreign Secretary bring to bear on the Indian Government to ensure that UK nationals in prison there have their human right to a fair trial respected? The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has been a powerful advocate for Jagtar Singh Johal. I have a similar case of an elderly constituent who has been in prison since 2015, and his family are seriously concerned about his health.
Mark Field
I accept that the time for which the legal process drags on in many Indian consular cases is hugely frustrating. I am obviously very happy to meet the hon. Lady in relation to this particular case.
If I may, in relation to the Jagtar Singh Johal case, let me say that I know it has been an incredibly distressing for Mr Johal and his family. I very much respect the hard work of the constituency Member of Parliament. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) knows, we have met the family on three occasions since Mr Johal was imprisoned at the beginning of 2018. The hon. Gentleman is going to meet the Foreign Secretary on 24 April.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
This Sunday is the 25th anniversary of the terrible genocide that took place in Rwanda, a country my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows well. The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), the noble Lord Popat and I will be at the ceremonies on Sunday in Kigali, representing our Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend think that the UN doctrine of the responsibility to protect—R2P—which has been so well developed by Gareth Evans, is yet sufficient to ensure that such terrible events could never take place again?
Mr Speaker
I hope the greatness of Gareth can be properly celebrated in the Chamber today.
Harriett Baldwin
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I hope to join him in Kigali this Sunday as the UK Government representative. The world can never forget the events in Rwanda 25 years ago. The world has made progress in vowing to say never again to genocide, but we must remain alert and engaged in order to prevent such incidents from happening ever again.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
How does ignoring or dismissing the International Court of Justice ruling on the Chagos islands enhance the United Kingdom’s reputation as a soft power superpower or uphold the international rules-based order?
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
First, it was not a ruling; it was an intermediate decision and non-binding. We are of course in discussions with Mauritius, but we fully uphold our right to take the position we have taken over many years.[Official Report, 3 April 2019, Vol. 657, c. 8MC.]
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The UK has a duty to prevent under the genocide convention. Mass atrocities are invariably preceded by red flags. Early warning signs, such as the persecution of minorities, happened in Burma against the Rohingya and, indeed, in Rwanda. What is the FCO doing to help identify and act on such red flags?
Mr Hunt
We are doing lots, but the most important thing that we have to do is make sure that when there has been genocide or alleged genocide, there is accountability. Burma is a case in point, and we hosted a major meeting on that very issue at the UN General Assembly. If there is no accountability, people think they have a chance to get away with doing it again, and that must not happen.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Further to the earlier answers on Brunei, we are talking about people being stoned to death for being gay—having rocks thrown at their heads again and again to draw out the process of death by blunt trauma. Surely the Minister agrees that that is barbaric, inhumane and contrary to Commonwealth values. How can the Government reverse this appalling state of affairs?
Mark Field
As I have pointed out, the Sultan of Brunei has become more religious as he has grown older, and that is one of the reasons why he wanted to bring in the sharia penal code. I was out there last August and it was very clear to me, from speaking to him and his advisers, that they envisaged that the common law stream would continue as well. I appreciate that the headlines cause concern. I have written to their representative here in the UK and made it very clear to them that this was going to cause massive parliamentary and media concern, which obviously has come to pass over the past couple of days. Our excellent high commissioner to Brunei, Richard Lindsay, is, on a day-to-day basis, making clear those grave concerns, which have also been expressed during the course of this morning’s questions.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The 70th anniversary of NATO falls on Thursday. What message does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have for member states with regard to strengthening this alliance, which has done so much to keep peace over so many years?
Mr Hunt
NATO has, I think, been the most successful military alliance ever, and it is the foundation of our rules-based international order. My message is very simple: we must not be complacent for the future, and there is a fundamental imbalance when one half of the alliance is spending 4% of its GDP on defence and the other half—the European side—is spending between 1% and 2%.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Thank you, colleagues. I am grateful to all who took part, but we must move on. Demand, as usual, massively exceeds supply.
Points of Order
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave you advance notice that I wished to raise this matter. I had a smear perpetrated against me when a snapshot of frozen film footage was printed in a tabloid paper, The Scottish Sun, suggesting that I was asleep during proceedings in this House. I contacted the journalist concerned, who had not shown the courtesy of contacting me before publishing this piece, to inform him that the film of the proceedings demonstrated categorically that I was not asleep but had for a second or two thrown my head back, appealing to the heavens in despair at chuntering in the Chamber while one of my colleagues was speaking.
As a result of this misleading article, I faced an outpouring of personal abuse against me over the weekend—and it continues—with words like “whore”, “bitch” and “lazy cow” being liberally sprinkled through messages, particularly on The Scottish Sun Facebook page. Those remarks are still online; they have not been removed, as far as I am aware.
Comments on a site in my own constituency—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, this is a matter of great importance.
Mr Speaker
Order. I absolutely accept the importance of the matter, and it is for that reason that I am very happy to hear the hon. Lady’s point of order, but, with the very greatest of respect, I will be the judge of how long a point of order lasts. Everything said in this Chamber is important. It is not for her to presume that she has as long as she wants. There are a lot of other colleagues who wish to speak and a lot of other matters to be debated. I am extremely sympathetic to her, and I already have in mind a very sympathetic response, but please do not say to me, “It is important,” meaning that you can go on for as long as you like. The answer to that, I am afraid, is no.
Patricia Gibson
The point I wish to make, Mr Speaker, is that this story—if it can be called that—was printed in an atmosphere of febrile political tension, when MPs’ security is a matter of great concern. It has been reposted, and the comments online continue to sit. This is a matter of importance to us all, as an attack on one MP going about her duties—a false one at that—is an attack on us all. Whipping up hatred against any one of us plays into the narrative that we are not real people and can be attacked.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. Lady upon what she is seeking an adjudication from the Chair. I cannot just have a speech on the subject. I will not have it. If she wants to ask me something in a sentence, I will respond, and if she wants an Adjournment debate on the subject, I can happily afford her that, but I am not having a speech now. It is not happening.
Patricia Gibson
Given that these posts continue, Mr Speaker, to be available on that publication’s social media platforms and continue to perpetrate that untruth and given that the evidence shows otherwise, what course of action do you suggest I take to seek an end to this apparent campaign to perpetrate a dishonesty, and stop the tidal wave of abuse that has been unleashed, which is an attack on us all?
Mr Speaker
First, I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter and giving me advance notice of her intention to do so. I underline and reinforce her concern. It is indeed an extremely serious matter—not just for her personally, but for all colleagues and, institutionally, for the House of Commons. False allegations against Members should not be allowed to gain traction. It affects us all and the reputation of the House if such allegations are not robustly refuted. To be fair, she has just robustly refuted the allegation. Her concern would be serious at any time, but it is a particular concern in what I think she described as the current febrile political atmosphere. She has put her view on the matter very clearly on the record. If she considers that the allegations made against her might conceivably constitute a contempt of the House, she should write to me setting out the facts, and I will adjudicate upon that. That is the first answer.
The second answer to the hon. Lady is that, if she wishes to stage an Adjournment debate on such abuse, of which this is an example, but there are many others, she might find that a friendly Chair will facilitate an Adjournment debate for her, possibly of up to an hour and a half, in which other colleagues could take part and in which she would have a full opportunity to make such speech as she judged necessary. Thirdly, my advice to the hon. Lady in the short term is that she should get her hands on a copy of the Official Report of today’s proceedings without delay—I am sure she will do so—and ensure that it is circulated to all the outlets responsible for propagating this slur upon her good name.
Fourthly, I say to the hon. Lady in terms that leave no scope for misunderstanding that I have a good vantage point in the Chair—I say that to all Members and those observing our proceedings—and I have never in my time in the Chair observing her seen her fall asleep.
She is a veritable parliamentary Zebedee—she is constantly jumping up and down—and that, as she knows, is a compliment, not an insult. She is one of the most alert Members of Parliament. She is one of the most assiduous Chamber attendees and participants. She is without blemish, in so far as her parliamentary commitment is concerned.
I will let her into a secret. I was once—not in this Chamber—watching a tennis match at Wimbledon. It was one of the most exciting matches that I have ever watched. Momentarily, I closed my eyes, not because I had fallen asleep or had drunk alcohol, because neither of those things was true—I had momentarily closed my eyes in sheer suspense. The camera caught me and the next day it was suggested in a newspaper that perhaps I had fallen asleep. As the hon. Lady knows, the notion that I would fall asleep watching a tennis match is just inherently absurd.
I do not treat this with levity. It is extremely serious, but as far as I am concerned, it is monstrous and ridiculous, and she should circulate the Official Report, which testifies to the Chair’s view of the matter. I have a better idea than those other commentators for the very simple reason that I observe Members every day from the Chair, and she would not fall asleep—amen, end of subject, period.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Minister for Asia and the Pacific said that he wanted to correct me with regard to my question, saying that the UK did not have RAF personnel in Saudi control centres. Last year, the MOD responded to other Members saying that it did and it responded to me saying that it had squadron leaders and lieutenants. It even listed the names of personnel. How do I get the Minister, who has not responded to my letter asking him to correct the record, to come here and correct the record, and state that we do have RAF personnel in Saudi control centres?
Mr Speaker
As to whether the Minister corrects the record, it is incumbent upon a Minister who thinks that he or she has erred to do so, but it is not incumbent upon me to act as arbiter of whether a correction is required. I am afraid that that must remain a matter for the Minister. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman, by the sedulous use of a bogus point of order, has taken the opportunity to put his own interpretation of matters clearly on the record. If I may say so, he looks mightily relieved to have done so.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At yesterday’s hearing of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I asked the Secretary of State for Wales why he had voted differently to some of his Cabinet colleagues on the extension of article 50. He informed me at that hearing that he had abstained because he had been elsewhere and had not been around at the time of the votes. It subsequently transpires that the right hon. Gentleman cast his vote by voting in both Lobbies, thereby abstaining. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether the Secretary of State has declared any intention to you that he will come to make a personal statement on this matter. If he has not done so, can you offer me any advice on how to proceed and deal with this rather unusual discrepancy?
Mr Speaker
I have not received any indication from the Secretary of State for Wales that he intends to come to the House to make a statement on that matter. I was not entirely clear whether the hon. Lady was suggesting that the explanation that she had had from the Minister was outside the Chamber or inside it.
Mr Speaker
Oh, it was in the Select Committee. Well, it was in the course of a parliamentary proceeding. I suppose the Secretary of State may think he was elsewhere than being in one Division Lobby, because he was in two Division Lobbies.
Mr Speaker
Oh, very well. If the Minister feels a responsibility to correct the record, he will do so. If not, knowing the eager beaver that the hon. Lady is, I have a feeling that she will be penning a letter and ensuring that it wings its way to the Secretary of State before very long. Whether he will await that letter with enormous enthusiasm is open to doubt.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The next business is the presentation of Bills, and it is to do with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will be presenting. Would it be appropriate for me to raise a point of order on it now or after she has presented the Bill?
Bill Presented
Sir William Cash
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on something that I raised yesterday in relation to the business motion and my very grave concern, I think shared by many people throughout the country—let alone in the House—about the idea of a Bill that is of such importance as this effectively being rammed through in one day. It is a Bill
“to make provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.”
In short, this is a reprehensible procedure in the context of the vitally important issue of our leaving the European Union. It is unconstitutional, and it is inconceivable that we should be presented with a Bill that could be rammed through in one day. In making this point of order, I want to ask you whether you have observations on the point that I just made.
Mr Speaker
My observation is threefold. First, that the hon. Gentleman is of this view was made very clear to me by his oration yesterday. Indeed, I say in no spirit of discourtesy to him that I rather imagine that anybody within a 50-mile radius of this place would be aware of his views on this important matter, given the force and frequency with which he has expressed them. Secondly, the House voted yesterday to give precedence tomorrow to a business of the House motion, which has not yet been tabled, so we await that. Thirdly, although this is of course an unusual state of affairs, it is not unknown for a Bill to be pushed through the House in one day. For a Bill brought forward by a Back-Bench Member, it is very unusual, but it is consequent upon a decision of the House. Bills being brought forward and taken through their various stages in one day in Government time are not particularly unusual at all. For example, Northern Ireland legislation has often been taken through the House on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not object to that in the way that he objects to this, but I do not think it is as unprecedented as he supposes. It is unusual and it is a bit different from those other examples, and it grates immensely with the hon. Gentleman, but that does not of itself render it disorderly. Upsetting the hon. Gentleman is displeasing but not disorderly. I think we will have to leave it there.
Banknote Diversity
Tuesday 2nd April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Banknote Diversity Bill 2017-19 View all Banknote Diversity Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Bank of England to meet standards for the representation of ethnic minority persons on banknotes; and for connected purposes.
I present this Bill because I believe that the Governor of the Bank of England now has a unique opportunity to address an archaic stereotype—one that completely undermines the credible efforts towards diversity and inclusion that are indeed taking place the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.
I must first pay tribute to the inspirational Zehra Zaidi and Dr Patrick Vernon OBE for their excellent “Banknotes of Colour” campaign, and I am glad to say that they are sitting in the Gallery today. Their campaign aims to secure the first ever ethnic minority person on a British banknote, and their efforts have already won very broad support both inside and outside the House. The Bill seeks to persuade the Governor of the Bank of England to designate a black, Asian or minority ethnic person to feature on the new £50 note, a decision that he is due to announce this summer. There have been 24 banknotes featuring a notable person on the reverse since the first was issued in July 1970. Of these, all but three have been historic white men, the notable exceptions being three women: Florence Nightingale, Elizabeth Fry and Jane Austen.
As you will know, Mr Speaker, the 2011 UK census showed that 14% of the UK population were from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds. Like everywhere else around the globe, the UK population will become ever more diverse in the coming decades. We talk so much of cohesion and integration and of active, engaged citizens, but for this to be achieved people and communities need to see that their stake in Britain—in its past, present and future—is universally recognised. To include a person of diversity on our banknotes would show a fundamental shift from a national stereotype to a modern, socially inclusive attitude in one of our oldest and most traditional institutions.
Such positive action would underline the pride we have in this country’s great multi-culture and help to defeat the despicable influence of the hatred and division that seeks to destroy our libertarian way of life. The Bank of England has a duty to support and promote integration and diversity. Indeed, its own guidance states that its banknote characters should reflect the diversity of UK society. It is therefore surprising and disappointing that the Bank has so far failed to recognise the ethnic diversity of our population on our national currency. The Bill would change that.
Over the last century, our diverse communities in the UK have undoubtedly made a seismic contribution to the making of modern Britain—in business, in public services, in the NHS and even in politics. There are so many examples: Mary Seacole, the Jamaican-British nurse who supported British troops during the Crimean war and whose contribution has been recognised as equal to that of Florence Nightingale; Noor Inayat Khan, a Muslim of Indian origin, who was the first female radio operator to infiltrate enemy occupied France in world war two; Sophia Duleep Singh, the prominent Indian suffragette and member of the Women’s Social and Political Union; and not forgetting Sir Charles Kao, the British-Chinese scientist who won the Nobel prize for physics and pioneered the use of fibre optics in telecommunications. There are, of course, many other examples, but all these individuals represent the very best of Britain.
The choice of the face of the new £50 note is a wonderful opportunity for the Bank of England. It would send a message from one of the greatest institutions in the land that the contribution of diverse communities to the building of Britain really does matter and is truly valued. In doing so, it would also ensure that the UK’s currency is reflective of the diverse, inclusive and tolerant modern Britain that I know and love.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Helen Grant, Mrs Maria Miller, Janet Daby, Dame Caroline Spelman, Caroline Lucas, Eddie Hughes, Kate Green, Clive Lewis, Jeremy Lefroy, Preet Kaur Gill, Helen Whately and Rachel Maclean present the Bill.
Mrs Helen Grant accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April, and to be printed (Bill 372).
Privileges
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House has tabled a motion on a matter of privilege that I have agreed should take precedence today. To move the motion, I call Mr Paul Maynard.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Paul Maynard)
I beg to move,
That this House—
(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (HC 1490); and
(ii) endorses the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings that the evidence sought by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to attend constituted a significant interference with the work of that Committee; concludes that Mr Cummings committed a contempt both by his refusal to obey the Committee’s order to attend it and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s Order of 7 June 2018; and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct.
In a week of constitutional innovation, we have one more, whereby I am standing in for the Leader of the House, who sends her apologies. I understand that she has been in touch with the Chairs of the Committee of Privileges and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to explain the reason for her absence.
The House deeply respects the work of Select Committees across the House. They do incredibly important work on behalf of all the peoples of the United Kingdom, and the Government remains a strong supporter of the Select Committee system. In accordance with traditional practice, the Leader of the House brought forward motions on Thursday 7 June and Thursday 28 June 2018 to raise the activities of Dominic Cummings as a matter of privilege following his refusal to obey the DCMS Committee’s order to attend and his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s order of 7 June 2018.
It is vital to the work of Select Committees that they can obtain full and accurate evidence from witnesses as part of their inquiries. I thank the members of the Committee of Privileges for undertaking the report and the members of the DCMS Committee for their work on behalf of Parliament. The report from the Privileges Committee concluded that it accepted the DCMS Committee’s view that the evidence it sought from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to appear constituted a significant interference with its work. The report states that Mr Cummings committed a contempt both by his initial refusal to obey the DCMS Committee’s order to attend and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s order. The Committee recommended that the House admonish Mr Cummings for his contempt, and it is for the House to determine whether to endorse these conclusions.
Mr Cummings has raised questions about the enforceability of the House’s powers and those of its Committee’s to secure evidence. I know that the Committee of Privileges intends to consider this matter further, and we await its conclusions, but today’s debate underlines the right of Select Committees to undertake their duties as assigned to them by the House. The Government have full respect for the privileges of the House of Commons and will continue to uphold them. They are crucial to the independence of Parliament and the strength of our democracy. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
Before the debate gets under way, I want to say one thing. From experience, I am clear in my own mind—and I am reinforced in my view by the specialist advice of the Clerks—that the focus of this motion is narrow. The Minister rightly stuck to its proper focus. This is not an occasion—I repeat not an occasion—for airing all the arguments about the conduct of the referendum campaign, Vote Leave, tactics used, fake news, and so on. That is not for today—I repeat not for today. This is about the rights of this House and the appearance and non-appearance of witnesses, the issue of compliance with the express wishes of the House and the issue of consequences for violation of our rights. If people have got speeches prepared in which they want to rehearse again all the arguments about the referendum campaign, I suggest the speedy and liberal application of the blue pencil. It is not required; indeed, it is required not to happen. We must not play games with the House’s procedures. I am extremely grateful to the Minister who moved the motion.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for presenting the motion, and note that the Leader of the House is occupied with important matters elsewhere. I also thank the Committee of Privileges, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for all its work in producing the report.
This is not the first Committee report on the conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings. On 5 June 2018, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee published a special report stating that it had first invited, then ordered Mr Cummings to give oral evidence as part of its inquiry into fake news, and that he had failed to comply with that order. On 7 June 2018, the House resolved that Mr Cummings should
“give an undertaking to the Committee, no later than 6pm on 11 June 2018, to appear before that Committee at a time on or before 20 June 2018.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 492.]
However, on 20 June 2018 the Chair of the DCMS Committee, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), reported to the House that Mr Cummings had failed to comply with the order of 7 June. The Leader of the House tabled a motion on 28 June that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and the House supported it.
In the annex to the report, on page 11, the Committee of Privileges helpfully set out the procedure that it would follow in inviting Mr Cummings to provide the DCMS Committee with oral and written evidence, so he has benefited from due process. It made a number of recommendations, and accepted the view of the DCMS Committee that the evidence that it sought from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to attend constituted a significant interference with its work. The Committee of Privileges
rejected Mr Cummings’s argument as to why he did not appear before the DCMS Committee. He had been offered a series of dates for a hearing, and had not supplied any evidence that suggested he was at significant risk of prosecution. The report states :
“The fact that a prospective witness takes a different view on policy or political issues from a select committee…does not constitute grounds to refuse to appear before that committee.”
Many of us who are members of Select Committees often hear evidence from all sides. It is the right of a Select Committee to do that, and to form a view based on the evidence.
The Committee of Privileges accepted the DCMS Committee’s view that in not giving it the evidence that it sought, Mr Cummings had committed a contempt both by his refusal to obey its order to attend and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s order of 7 June 2018. The report states:
“Attending the hearing and defending his position when called upon to do so would have been the right thing to do.”
The Committee recommends that the House should admonish Mr Cummings for his contempt, and that the admonishment should take the form of a resolution of the House. The resolution, if agreed to, should be communicated to Mr Cummings by the Clerk of the House.
I thank the Committee again for its work, and I support the motion.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his statement. I also thank the Leader of the House for giving me notice that she would be unable to attend the Chamber today, and for the words that the Deputy Leader of the House read out on behalf of the Government. I thank my fellow members of the DCMS Committee, and I thank the Chair of the Privileges Committee and her colleagues for their investigation.
We are not here today as a consequence of a rush of blood to the head and the “at whim” decision of a parliamentary Committee to order a private citizen to give evidence in front of us. Today we are at the end of a process that has run for the best part of 10 months, from the Committee’s first attempts to invite a witness to attend to the process of its ordering that witness to attend, to that being reported to the House and the House also ordering him to attend, and then to the matter being referred to the Committee of Privileges for it to investigate.
I am pleased that that Committee has agreed with the statement in our report that we were within our rights to call the witness, and that the witness should have attended. The witness himself, Mr Cummings, was critical of our Committee’s inquiry, of other witnesses who had attended, and of the evidence that they had given. Our main reason for wishing him to attend was so that he could respond to the allegations made by other witnesses. That is an important part of the inquiry, and also demonstrates the Committee’s desire to hear all sides of the story. We are frustrated in that process when witnesses refuse to confirm dates, put up spurious reasons why they cannot attend, and then, in correspondence with the Committee, seek to behave in a way that is contemptuous of its work and, therefore, of the work of the House.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
This is the heart of the matter. The report states that many of Mr Cummings’s communications were highly inappropriate, including some outside the House. He did not do himself any favours in that respect. I personally wanted to hear what he had to say, and I honestly believe that many members of the Committee had open minds and wanted their questions to be answered. Is it not also true that we asked very probing questions when it came to the other side of the debate? We questioned Christopher Wylie very closely about his desire to hawk information to Vote Leave.
Damian Collins
Indeed. The questions that we wished to put to Mr Cummings were highly relevant to our inquiry. They were also highly relevant to evidence presented by other people, including representatives of organisations that had worked with him in his capacity as director of Vote Leave. I think that we should have had an opportunity to put those questions, as a relevant part of our inquiry and the work of the Committee. As the Committee of Privileges says in its report, it cannot be for individuals to seek to interfere with the work of a parliamentary Committee. We should regard that as a very serious matter.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but is there not also an issue of consistency? I am told that Mark Zuckerberg also declined to give evidence to the Committee during the same inquiry. Moreover, it is quite common for Ministers to decline to give evidence to inquiries, including Ministers in some of the devolved Administrations and Assemblies. I think that the point my hon. Friend is making should be applied consistently and across the board to all potential witnesses, and that we should not fall into the trap of singling out one individual.
Damian Collins
I do not believe that we are singling out one individual in this case. It is highly unusual for anyone to behave in the way in which Dominic Cummings behaved towards the Committee. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that we issued an invitation to Mark Zuckerberg, but that is all that we could do. We did not issue a summons or an order for him to appear, because we do not have the jurisdictional powers to do so. He is not a UK national, and is not resident in the UK. We can only issue summonses of that sort to foreign nationals if they happen to be in this country. We said that we would do that, but obviously we do not have an opportunity to do it. So the circumstances in that case are very different.
On the day that we issued the order for Dominic Cummings to appear before the Committee, we also issued an order to Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, and he chose to accept. The personal circumstances of Mr Nix at the time, in terms of the investigations of him and his former company, gave far greater reason for him not to attend than Dominic Cummings, who was not under personal investigation at all at that stage. There were no reasons in law why he should not appear. The normal sub judice rules that protect witnesses from incriminating themselves did not apply in his case. The Committee sought legal advice in that regard. I think that, when we have gone through a thorough process and there are no particular grounds for a witness not to appear, if the Committee and the House believe that it is important for that witness to appear, he should do so.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the privileges of Ministers, but the rules of the House in that regard are very different from those applying to private citizens.
George Eustice
Will my hon. Friend confirm, then, that it is his view that it is illegitimate for Ministers ever to claim that they cannot give evidence to a Committee because legal proceedings on a particular issue are under way?
Damian Collins
The House does have rules relating to matters that are before UK courts and may prevent witnesses from giving evidence, but I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend has cited. I do not believe that Ministers should claim special privileges in order not to give evidence to a Committee, but they do have a different status. I do not think that that different status should give any individual in the country an opportunity to ignore an order from a Committee or a summons to appear before Parliament simply because they happen to take exception to the idea that Ministers have special privileges that they do not have—as, indeed, do Members of the House of Lords.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I want to pick up the point about consistency. It is not just my hon. Friend’s Select Committee that may have problems with calling witnesses—important witnesses—to take part in inquiries. The Women and Equalities Committee is currently going through a similar process, but we are only one month into requesting an individual to appear before us. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful if there were more explicit guidelines on the process to be followed, so that it could take place more speedily? I certainly would not want my inquiry on non- disclosure agreements to drag on for a further 10 months.
Damian Collins
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There needs to be more clarity about the process—clarity within the rules as they stand, and more clarity on what the powers of the House are. We have ancient powers, which in modern law cannot be enforced, and they have not been replaced with anything more suitable.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
As Chair of a Select Committee, I am sure that my hon. Friend will have shared my experience that the difficulty in getting witnesses to appear is not necessarily around private citizens, who are usually very willing to appear before a Select Committee; it is around encouraging ministerial colleagues, on occasion, and public officials to come before Select Committees. That is where the resistance is. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be at least an equivalence of rules regarding the appearance of private citizens and elected individuals and publicly accountable individuals before Select Committees? We have not got that balance right yet.
Damian Collins
As I said to other hon. Members, I am sympathetic to any Select Committee that seeks to interview a public official or Minister as part of their inquiry. In my three years’ experience as Chair of a Select Committee I have never had that problem, but others have. There is a big difference between a Minister of the Crown and a private citizen, in that a Minister is a Member of Parliament and can be questioned, in this House or in the House of Lords, as part of their ministerial duties. The only opportunity we have to question people outside Parliament, as part of an inquiry, is to invite them to appear before the Committee. There is no other avenue, be it a ministerial question time or debate, where we can pursue that person. That is why the rules concerning private citizens are particularly important. I would be very sympathetic to the idea of looking at the rules for Ministers, but at least other avenues are open for challenging a Minister as part of parliamentary process.
George Eustice
I recall, as a Minister, having agreed to give evidence to a Committee of the Welsh Assembly and being told that it was not Government policy for Ministers in Westminster to attend such Committees, since they had no rights to hold us to account. Does my hon. Friend think that, bearing in mind what he has just said, perhaps a different set of rules should apply to the devolved Administrations, and that Westminster Ministers should be required to attend such hearings in devolved assemblies?
Damian Collins
As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, I think there is a basic principle and a presumption that witnesses, be they a Minister or not, should attend Committees conducting inquiries. Select Committees conduct such inquiries on behalf of the House, with powers delegated to them by the House. I also believe that if a Member of the House of Lords chose to use their special privileges as a parliamentarian not to be summoned in front of a Committee, that would not be appropriate if that Member of the House of Lords held an important public position, as many Members of the House of Lords do.
Other options are available to question Members of Parliament and Ministers that are not available to question a private citizen. The only forum we have to question a private citizen as part of a parliamentary inquiry is to invite them to appear before a Select Committee. That power is incredibly important, because the role of a Select Committee is not just to scrutinise the work of a Government Department or a public body, but to scrutinise other matters of public interest, where a Committee believes there is a case for Government intervention, new rules or new laws on something important. It is for the Committees to determine the scope of their inquiries, and witnesses should attend when required. It is very rare that witnesses choose not to attend.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Of course, Mr Cummings cannot be with us today—and did not want to be with us on another occasion. Did he give any indication that he thought there was some legal reason why it would be better if he did not attend?
Damian Collins
The correspondence between me as Chair of the Committee and Mr Cummings is published in full in the Committee’s report, so any Member can read that and make their own judgment as to the case that Mr Cummings made. Obviously, the matter was also reviewed by the Privileges Committee, which also invited Mr Cummings to speak to it as part of its inquiry, which he declined. Mr Cummings stated that other cases were involved, and that he had been guided by the people he had spoken to not to appear, but there was no reason in law for that. He was not under personal investigation; he was not likely to be charged with an offence. He may have all sorts of private grounds for not wanting to do it, but unless there is a particular legal reason why witnesses should not appear, I do not believe it is good enough for them to create reasons why they would rather not give evidence; that would undermine the whole process. If a witness declines to give evidence simply because it is unsatisfactory to him to do so, I do not think we should accept it.
George Eustice
Does my hon. Friend not have at least some sympathy for the argument that Vote Leave was under investigation by the Electoral Commission—a full-scale legal investigation? Given that that was an ongoing investigation, a request to give evidence after that had concluded was not at all unreasonable.
Damian Collins
We had a similar issue with other witnesses during the inquiry. When Arron Banks gave evidence to the Committee, some aspects of Leave.EU’s work that were relevant to the Committee investigation were under investigation by the Electoral Commission at that time. My hon. Friend may check the official record of the evidence session. We told Mr Banks at that session that we would not question him about matters that were under investigation by the Electoral Commission, as it would not be proper to do so, but there were a large number of other topics on which we wanted to pursue relevant lines of inquiry.
It was exactly the same with Dominic Cummings. We could have reached an accommodation, but he was not prepared, in principle, to attend. During the course of our correspondence we set out why we thought he should attend, and it became quite clear that once he was aware that we were determined to issue an order requesting that he appear on a certain day, he would refuse point-blank to appear at all. He then requested all sorts of other conditions—that he would not appear before the DCMS Committee but he might appear before a specially constructed ad hoc Committee of the House, and that members of the Committee should swear an oath before questioning him, in addition to his swearing an oath. This is nonsense. We either respect our rules and the powers that we have, or we do not.
Not just my Committee found this. I am sure that the Chair of the Privileges Committee will speak for herself about her inquiry. During the Treasury Committee’s inquiry before the referendum, different parties were invited to give evidence, and it too is scathing about the experience of dealing with Mr Cummings and the general contempt that he showed. We have to accept that if we do not really take our own powers seriously, other people will behave in a similar way. Other people will look at this case and say, “Actually, you can just ignore the Committees’ requests. There is nothing they can do.”
There are often important reasons why Committees wish to call in private citizens to account for their work. Mr Cummings is not just a private citizen going about his business in a quiet part of the country. He has held a series of important offices, he is a former Government special adviser and he was director of an incredibly important national political campaign. The work of that campaign had been referenced already in a parliamentary inquiry, and we wished to ask him about the evidence that had been given, of which he himself was critical and to which he felt there should have been some right to reply.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Over the past few years, the likes of Rupert Murdoch have appeared before Committees, and we have seen Sir Philip Green appearing—not wholly successfully—before Committees. Surely, if people of that stature are prepared to face a Committee, others of lesser stature should do so too.
Damian Collins
That is absolutely right. I was a member of the Committee when Rupert Murdoch came to give evidence, in response to a summons of the House. That was right in the middle of the phone-hacking scandal, with legal cases left, right and centre—massive challenges for that business—and yet he considered that it was his responsibility and the proper thing to respond, give evidence in person and answer all the Committee’s questions. If it is good enough for someone of the stature of Rupert Murdoch, surely Dominic Cummings could find time in his busy schedule as well. There was no reason why he should not have done so.
There have been other times when my Committee has struggled to get witnesses to attend and they have attended at the last minute. We are going through that process now with some companies. We may wish to call other organisations as well. We saw during our inquiry that other political campaigns, such as the shadowy Mainstream Network, which was advertising last year on Facebook, were seeking to get members of the public to lobby their MP on what they should or should not do on the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Other organisations, such as We are the 52% and Britain’s Future, are doing that right now. We might want to call in such organisations in future as part of investigations, but they could look at the behaviour of Dominic Cummings and say, “We are disinclined to come, and there is not much you can do about it.”
People often cite the ancient powers of the House to lock people up in a prison under Big Ben or in the House, and those powers technically still exist, but they would rightly be considered to be unenforceable. The House must therefore debate and decide what we want to do when witnesses decline to attend. There should be a proper process; it should not just be down to the arbitrary summons of 11 Members of Parliament. There should be a proper process to check—as the Privileges Committee has done—that the Committee was following due process, that it had good grounds, and that there was a public interest in the witness attending. Then, when they fail to attend, there should be some clear sanction. In other Parliaments in the world, there are rules in such cases—a referral to court or some other body that makes the final decision and imposes a sanction. I believe we now need clearly codified rules, on both summoning witnesses and ordering papers.
John Redwood
I am interested in this point. What kind of sanction does my hon. Friend think would be appropriate and might make a difference?
Damian Collins
That is ultimately a matter for the House to determine. Let us look at other jurisdictions. I believe that the United States Congress, for example, can impose a fine or a custodial sentence of up to three months, and I believe that the Scottish Parliament has something similar, but Members will correct me if that is not the case. Other legislatures have processes that include clear sanctions in law that can be applied if a reasonable request for a witness to appear or for documents to be served has not been met. I do not believe that politicians should sit in judgment over private citizens and start ordering those penalties, however. It is probably right that some independent outside body should do that, as happens in other areas of public life. We should determine what our role should be, and if we believe that a reasonable request has been made for a witness to appear or for papers to be issued to a Committee, that should be done. It is reasonable to expect someone who has been asked to give evidence to a Committee to do so honestly and truthfully. If it is proved that they are lying to or misleading the Committee, there should be some sanction for that as well. There is then a separate debate about who should enforce that sanction and what the penalty should be, but if we use these powers responsibly and we expect people to comply with them, there has to be some sanction if they do not do so, as in the case of Mr Cummings.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am following this argument with great interest. Given the nature of Dominic Cummings—incidentally, I do not think the way he has behaved towards the Select Committee is any different from the way he behaves generally—does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real danger that he would regard an admonishment from the House of Commons as a badge of honour? Does he also agree that we need some form of alternative measure so that future witnesses will not think that an admonishment is the only thing they might have to face?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend is right; that is an important point. There has to be some penalty. For some people, that would involve damage to their reputation. Someone who is running a public body or a regulated industry, for example, might find that their reputation was damaged because they had behaved in a way that was inconsistent with upholding the high standards of their office. Clearly, Dominic Cummings does not seem to care about those things. We need to ask whether someone who has been found in contempt of Parliament and admonished by Parliament would be an appropriate candidate to hold a public position such as a Government adviser or a member of a public body in the future. Should there be a bar on that?
Julian Knight
Does my hon. Friend envisage a similar bar on someone for being a bankrupt, for example?
Damian Collins
Absolutely; my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Committee makes an excellent point. That is a good example of people finding themselves in a situation of which they are the cause, and of clear penalties being in place that can restrict their future actions and activities, although not necessarily their liberty. Someone who has been found in contempt of the House should face some sort of real-world sanction that takes into account their appropriateness to be a fit and proper person to hold certain positions and roles, and certainly to be appointed to public office. For example, if Mr Cummings were ever again asked to be a Government adviser or special adviser, these sorts of things should be taken into account, and I am sure that they would be.
There needs to be a further sanction in law as well, including a range of penalties depending on the severity of the offence, with someone in authority to adjudicate and enforce those sanctions. As the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has said, there should be a clear process so that we can understand how long it should take and, ideally, a witness could be compelled to come within the scope of an inquiry, rather than doing as I believe Dominic Cummings intended to do, which was to offer to come here at some point in the future, knowing full well that that could be one or two years later. Indeed, I do not believe that the conditions he set out in his initial email have yet been met, so he probably still would not come before the Committee, more than a year later. We have to consider whether that is in any way acceptable, because it massively impedes the work of parliamentary Committees if they cannot summon witnesses who are relevant to their inquiries. In his case, we were asking him to come here in direct response to evidence that the Committee had received that was relevant to him and to our inquiry. We had very strong grounds for asking him to come.
Michael Fabricant
I am slightly concerned about one more thing, which was touched on earlier when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) mentioned Rupert Murdoch. There was a serious criminal inquiry into Vote Leave going on at the time that my hon. Friend is talking about. Surely he would have some sympathy if there was a danger that someone appearing before the Committee might prejudice their own defence, should a criminal investigation then occur.
Damian Collins
Those conditions certainly applied in the case of Rupert Murdoch, because he was asked expressly what he knew about the practice of phone hacking at his newspapers, as was Rebekah Brooks, who gave evidence on the same day. That was a major part of the hearing. Those people could have used that excuse. There are different questions involved here. The right to non-incrimination for someone who is likely to face court proceedings and be charged with a particular offence, or who has already been charged, is already covered by the House’s sub judice rules. There are already clear rules in place for that. In this case, however, Mr Cummings had not been directly charged with an offence, although there were other ongoing investigations. As I have said, we agreed with other witnesses that there were certain things that we would not discuss as being on topic, so as not to interfere with other ongoing inquiries. Nevertheless, we managed to conduct a proper hearing with those witnesses and gain valuable evidence from them. There is no reason why that could not have been done in Mr Cummings’s case.
George Eustice
The argument that my hon. Friend is making is a curious one, because Dominic Cummings was the director of Vote Leave, and the investigation into Vote Leave was ongoing. As the former director of that organisation, it was obviously legitimate for him to be concerned that the investigation might be prejudiced, in much the same way as a Minister, while not being directly charged with anything, might nevertheless have concern for proceedings being made against the Government.
Damian Collins
Well, it sort of depends on what Mr Cummings thought he was going to say and whether he thought he was likely to be in that position. As I have said, the Committee wished to discuss a range of issues and topics with him that were not at the time being expressly investigated by the Electoral Commission. Its investigation was largely to do with funding issues and the co-ordination between Vote Leave and other campaigns involved in the referendum. We had lots of questions about Vote Leave’s work with AggregateIQ and about its involvement in data analytics and the way data was being gathered, stored and used during the campaign that were highly relevant to our inquiry. He could have come in to discuss those issues. If there were no grounds for him not to appear, and he just did not want to appear, I do not believe that the House should accept that as an excuse.
Sir Hugo Swire
Does my hon. Friend concede that there would be a difference if the gentleman in question had not wished to appear on account of prejudicing an ongoing inquiry with which he was associated, as against his not recognising the legitimacy of Parliament to summon him to appear? I suspect that in this case the latter applied, not the former, and that there might be a difference.
Damian Collins
There is a difference. I do not believe that Mr Cummings ever accepted the legitimacy of Parliament to ask him to appear, which is a matter that we should take seriously in its own right. From the very start, it seemed clear that he thought he should give evidence on his own terms, in his own way, on his own dates—
Damian Collins
And even to his own Committee, yes. He thought it was no business of ours to set parameters for the special ad hoc Committee of the House that should be assembled just to question Dominic Cummings. That is a ridiculous way for someone to behave when they have been asked to give evidence. If he had said at the beginning that he was willing to give evidence even though he did not want to discuss certain topics because of other investigations he was associated with, and that he would discuss other things, that would have been a very different matter. The Committee of Privileges might have taken a different view if that had been the case. It is interesting that he declined to give evidence to that investigation as well, even though it took place sometime after the event. This just shows his general contempt for the House and its practices. He feels that we have no business asking difficult questions or prying into his affairs, but I believe that that is our business and that we have a right to do that.
It is rare for the House to issue a summons—most witnesses come willingly—but when we legitimately seek to summon witnesses to give evidence to our inquiries, we should have that power, and when someone refuses and shows contempt for us, there should be a sanction and we should have a power to act further. Today’s debate is not the end of the discussion on whether Dominic Cummings should have appeared before the DCMS Committee; it is about how we can take this forward and formalise the powers of the House to ensure that we do not find ourselves in this position again.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I rise on behalf of the Scottish National party to support the resolution and to urge the House to vote for it, although sadly without any great hope or expectation that doing so will have a great deal of effect. Mr Speaker cautioned us at the beginning of this discussion to try to restrict our comments to the narrow business under consideration. I had wanted to put this question into the wider context of the debate on Brexit, and to consider the wider political questions, but I will not do that. I have taken Mr Speaker’s advice and, in my imagination, I have applied a blue pen to much of what I was going to say.
It is appropriate for us to note why the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee wanted to hear from Mr Cummings in the first place. It was because many of the concerns expressed about the Vote Leave campaign exemplified the concerns about fake news that it was holding an inquiry into. As I said, I shall not go into great detail about this, but we have to say as a matter of record that the Vote Leave campaign stands accused of engaging in lies, propaganda and wilful distortion of the facts. It is a fact that it has been found guilty by the Information Commissioner of breaking the regulations on the gathering of personal data. It is a fact that it broke the law and has been fined by the Electoral Commission on expenses. It would be legitimate for Mr Cummings to engage with the Committee to discuss those things, and his refusal to do so or to appear before the Committee—that is the reason why the motion has been tabled—suggests that he has something to hide or that he cannot mount a defence against the accusations that have been made, which should concern the House.
Hon. Members have said, and I think it is true, that we should be concerned about what admonishment actually means. What sort of sanction or leverage is it at the end of the day? I fear that it is not a very great one, and this instance and others should lead us to reflect on whether our procedures are adequate for House of Commons inquiries into matters of public concern, and whether we need additional powers, as many other countries have, to compel people to give evidence when that is in the public interest. I make no suggestion about how that might happen, but I want to put on the table a recommendation that it should happen.
Finally, we are entitled, without going into detailed political debate, to form opinions and draw conclusions about the intentions and attitude of Mr Cummings as described in the motion. Many colleagues and I watched the recent TV drama “Brexit: The Uncivil War” which, to my mind, offered a generous and sympathetic portrayal of Dominic Cummings, suggesting that he was some sort of tortured genius—a radical, a free thinker and iconoclast; someone who wanted to engage in the noblest notions of sovereignty and democracy, and who would not debase himself for a moment in gutter politics. I am not sure that that is entirely the case.
George Eustice
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the direction that Mr Speaker gave at the beginning of the debate was for an important reason? This is a serious discussion of an admonishment for someone’s failure to appear before a Committee. It should be about the facts of that decision not to appear or otherwise—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I, too, know what was said, and I will be the judge of whether something stretches beyond or remains within the advice that Mr Speaker gave. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am listening carefully. At the moment, we have not stepped outside the limits, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is coming towards the end of his speech. We all know that there are limits that we should not go beyond. To mention someone in passing is one thing, but I do not want to get into an argument about the weakness of examples. It is purely about privilege, and we certainly have not stepped outside those limits.
Tommy Sheppard
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been keeping an eye on you carefully to make sure that I do not stray beyond the bounds or limitations that were set. I shall conclude simply by saying that I have drawn my own opinions from what has happened in this case as to the character of Mr Cummings.
Perhaps the truth is rather more mundane. Perhaps he is, after all, just a posh boy from a privileged background who has a sense of entitlement that means he does not think he has to account to his peers for his actions. I fear that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is correct. If we agree the motion, as we should, at Mr Cummings’s next dinner party it will be worn as a badge of honour, and he will continue in contempt of the House, because there are people of his class who regard democratic institutions such as this in precisely that way.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Along with many colleagues, I think that the Select Committee system is a good one, and it can only operate if we invite witnesses to give evidence. If they do not want to appear, we can summon them, so I think the debate is timely. It should not just be about one particular case or person but encompass the important issues alluded to by some of the previous speakers that revolve around the question of what is a compelling invitation and what is a sanction for those who refuse the invitation or the requirement that they should attend and answer questions.
Michael Fabricant
I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but I want to probe him on this. Earlier in the debate, Members discussed what happened in other countries—for example, the United States, where there are sanctions if someone does not appear before a House Committee. Then we get into a position whereby witnesses say to the Committee, “I am sorry, I won’t answer that because it might incriminate me.” Does my right hon. Friend think that we have to be careful lest we end up with that situation? It is about getting the balance right.
John Redwood
I agree that it is about balance. My hon. Friend has invited me to reach my conclusion before I have made my argument. However, cutting to part of the conclusion, yes, we do need to look at sanctions, and it would be good if as a result of this debate the relevant Committee considered practice in other good, democratic institutions around the world and looked at which were most effective. We need to be seen, as we are, as a serious body with every right to require any UK citizen to come here and explain themselves, and we need to be able to enforce that in a sensible and proportionate way. I do not think that our current enforcement is proportionate if someone has no good reason to refuse or deny.
I want to develop one or two exceptions to that rule. At the heart of this particular case is the issue of whether or not legal proceedings are under way that could in some way be prejudiced if the witness came here and spoke too widely about the things that the authorities were investigating. There is a sub judice rule. It is always a matter of judgment for any individual who faces that kind of proceeding, and it is also a matter of judgment for lawyers involved in prospective cases. I do not think that we should ignore that, as it could be an important part of this particular case, and can certainly be a crucial part of any future case. If someone has to answer because there is a general worry about their past conduct—I am not talking about Mr Cummings; I am talking about a future case—it is quite likely that there could be a legal inquiry, as well as the wish to have a parliamentary inquiry.
If we are going to have higher sanctions, as I suspect we should, we need to be even clearer about what are the legitimate legal grounds. That brings me to my next point. When people do something that is contentious for the wider public and for Members of Parliament, and which splits opinion in the country, there is a danger of too many inquiries. Suddenly, they are all across the media, and are on the front pages of the newspapers. Everyone is talking about them, and people chase the ambulance—they want to chase the excitement. There is a danger that there will be several Committees in this House wanting to conduct an inquiry into largely the same thing from different departmental perspectives. They may want to home in on the same key witnesses, because they are so newsworthy at the moment. We may then be in a position where we overload potential witnesses, and get in the way of conducting a fair inquiry that can add to our understanding, rather than just adding to glamorous media reports of our involvement.
Damian Collins
I know that my right hon. Friend is talking in general terms about a future case, but for the record, in this particular case involving Mr Cummings, Select Committees were not competing to ask him to come and give evidence. We were the only Committee that sought to invite him to appear, and we took advice from the House authorities on whether or not the concerns raised about other cases were relevant to our request.
John Redwood
I understand that, and I explicitly said that I was not talking about Mr Cummings in that part of my speech. This is about how we enforce in general, as well as being about the sanction that the House wishes to confirm in the motion against a particular individual. Certainly, Mr Cummings, Vote Leave and all the rest of it might have been subject to other inquiries, because there has been huge political interest in that both outside and inside the House, and it is a contentious matter. It is the kind of thing where there could be inquiry overload, with more heat but not a lot of light. We need a period of calm reflection, as I know the Committee Chairman and others are undertaking, to think about a range of possibilities.
There are two issues to deal with before we think of intensifying our sanction regime. First, can a witness give a really good reason, because of some kind of legal advice or legal inquiry? We do not want to get in the way of proper inquiries into possibly serious crimes. Secondly, can we make sure that we do not contribute to chasing excitement, and often false allegations, because an individual is in the media spotlight? Where there is a serious interest, perhaps a lead Committee should take it up and handle that particular person.
It is also important to be fair between the different possible categories of witnesses. We have to bear in mind that an individual will not have the back-up, support and cover for legal and other costs that may be involved in being on the wrong end of an inquiry, whereas a representative of a great company will have enormous support and will have people writing parts of their evidence and drawing on the back data that is needed, and they will obviously have cover for legal expenses.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning the types of witnesses who appear before Select Committees. I simply want to put the record straight. Is he aware that Dominic Cummings’s father was an oil rig project manager, his mother was a special needs teacher and he went to Durham School? To categorise him, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) did, as some sort of “posh boy” is completely wrong.
John Redwood
It is always better to deal in facts than in general allegations or misdescriptions, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
The point I am making is that Committees should understand that an individual who does not work for a great corporation, who does not have a well-paid job or who is no longer part of an organisation does not have the same back-up and support as someone who is still the chief executive of a mighty company.
Damian Collins
My right hon. Friend is making an important point. The chief executive of a big company will have a team of people to help them prepare their evidence, but that is not required. Committees well understand that a submission from a company might be different from a submission from a private individual. There are many private individuals who submit written evidence and who freely come to give evidence to Committees without any of that support. All we ask them to do is to come and talk about themselves. In fact, when they seek to give evidence, they have the same legal immunity and protection as members of the Committee do, so they do not have to worry about potentially incriminating themselves or taking legal advice before speaking out.
John Redwood
I was not going to conclude that we should stop asking people who do not have a well backed up job, but we need to understand, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that if we are asking an individual who was once in an important position, with all that back-up, to come and talk about events of a year or two years ago, and if they do not wish to mislead the Committee and they wish to be factually accurate, they will need somehow to get access to the records of their past institution and they will need to go through a lot of preparation, and they will have to do it all for themselves or spend their own money on getting advice and legal support.
George Eustice
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to be mindful of the unintended consequences if we were to introduce a stronger sanction on witnesses for failing to appear? What if, for instance, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee were holding an inquiry into phone hacking and decided it would be newsworthy to force the parents of a murdered schoolchild to appear before the Committee? That would clearly be inappropriate, and it would clearly be inappropriate to use such a sanction in that situation.
John Redwood
That is another hard case I had not thought of, and it needs to be taken into account as we pursue this general issue of what would be a relevant sanction.
The third category of people is senior officials and Ministers who receive salaries from the public via the Government. I think they should be more answerable than anybody else, because they are, by definition, primarily remunerated by and spend much of their lives working for the Government and the public. I would have difficulties if we found that Committees could not get access to senior officials who work full time for the Government and the wider public or if, in certain cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) mentioned earlier, Ministers did not think they should be answerable to elected Assemblies because they thought it might be inconvenient to give more background or detail on the policies they have been pursuing or the decisions they have taken.
I would want to weight things a bit more heavily in favour of this House having extremely strong powers to demand the presence of senior officials and Ministers, who should not be able to refuse to answer, unless it is a state secret or a matter of national defence, just because it is embarrassing or might reveal that the Government have made a mistake or wasted a lot of money—as if those things never happen. It is our job to tease out those things, and to do so we need direct accountability.
Our Ministers are normally very good, and they have to be, because Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speakers will grant urgent questions, or there will be a statement or a Question Time at which Ministers have to come and give answers. Ministers also normally come to Select Committees. The system is not perfect, but it is rather less satisfactory with senior officials, and there have been occasions when Select Committees have found it quite difficult to get access to very senior officials who know a great deal that is of public interest and should not be secret.
From my memory of my past life as a Minister, there was a bit too much secrecy in government, and there was a feeling in the official machine that everything that happened before a Minister made a statement was somehow private, whereas I felt it was often better to explain some of it. If I had made a 51:49 call but had a lot of sympathy with the 49%, because it was a collective decision, I found it helpful to explain to the House that I could see both sides of the argument, that we had to come down on one side or the other but that it was a marginal call. That is helpful to the House, but sometimes Ministers seem to think that the 51% call has to be put up as the only possible answer and all other answers are stupid, which does not make for good inquiries or for a good understanding of the difficult and sometimes messy business of government, in which Ministers often make imperfect decisions on insufficient information because a decision has to be made.
Something good can come out of this incident, which may be a more general recognition by this House that we need a stronger sanction for anyone in future who has no good reason for turning down a requirement to come as a witness. We need all UK citizens to feel they should come unless there is a compelling legal reason, but we need to be sensitive to the different categories of witnesses, and we need to have proportionate and sensible responses, according to how powerful a witness is and how much access they have to support and legal advice.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for this early opportunity to debate the report of the Committee of Privileges, which we published last week, and for tabling a motion in the terms requested by the Committee. She was good enough to inform me that she is not able to be present in the Chamber this afternoon to move the motion, and I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for doing so and for supporting the Committee’s report.
This case has proved rather protracted, for reasons I will come to, but it is essentially a very simple matter, so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, Mr Cummings failed to obey, first, an order of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and, then, an order of the House itself to attend an oral evidence hearing. When the House referred this to the Privileges Committee as an alleged contempt, we agreed a resolution on process that is appended to our report. It is based on a resolution agreed by our predecessor Committee some years ago when considering the case of News International witnesses who were alleged to have committed a contempt by misleading a Select Committee. We have adhered strictly to the procedures set out in that resolution, even though it has had the effect of lengthening our inquiry.
We invited Mr Cummings to give oral evidence, but despite our giving him ample opportunity to agree a date, it proved impossible to do so. In an email to us, and again in his blog last week, Mr Cummings has made various mis-statements about this. I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I want to put on public record a rebuttal of one or two of his assertions.
In his blog, Mr Cummings states, in relation to the date of a projected evidence session before the Committee of Privileges, as agreed in December:
“We tentatively agreed 31 Jan”
but
“they cancelled the hearing in January and declined to reschedule it”.
Our report sets out what actually happened. At the start of December we offered Mr Cummings a selection of dates for a hearing in January. In response, Mr Cummings told us that he would “probably” come on 31 January—the latest of the dates we offered—but that he would confirm before Christmas. He did not.
I wrote to Mr Cummings on 10 January, seeking confirmation. I received no reply. The Committee’s Clerk emailed him on 23 January, also seeking a response. He replied on 28 January:
“helo ive just seen this, I will reply this afternoon”.
There was no further reply. On 29 January, with two days to go until the proposed evidence session, and having had no confirmation that he would attend, the Committee met and decided that it had no alternative but to cancel the session and bring our inquiry to as rapid a conclusion as possible.
In his blog, Mr Cummings states:
“My last letter to the Committee of 26/2 is below. I got no answer...”
That is quite untrue. On 28 February, two days after his email, I wrote to him to respond in detail to his comments. I received no reply. All these letters, emails and responses are published on the Committee’s website.
At an earlier stage—this is similar to the experience of the DCMS Committee—Mr Cummings had insisted that all Members of Parliament taking part in the hearing should take an oath. I replied, pointing out that that would not be possible; we were willing to administer the oath to him, at his own request, but the oath could be administered only to witnesses, just as in the law courts the judge and barristers do not take an oath. In his blog, he described that argument as “laughable”. He also says that the Committee
“replied that No, they didn’t want to promise to tell the truth and sadly they weren’t able to make such a promise(!) but would I come anyway”.
Those comments are completely fabricated. I will not continue outlining the exchanges; anyone who wishes to can read our full report, and the various letters and email exchanges published with it, and make up their own mind as to whether it was the Committee of Privileges or Mr Cummings who was behaving unreasonably.
Notwithstanding those responses from Mr Cummings, I want to assure the House that the Committee has done its very best to approach the case scrupulously. Our report assesses whether his conduct amounts to contempt of Parliament. It might seem obvious that a refusal to obey an order of the House, or of its Committees, is a contempt of Parliament. However, in certain exceptional circumstances it is conceivable that a prospective witness might be justified in declining to give evidence, if they have genuine grounds to fear that they would be treated unfairly, or that giving evidence might significantly prejudice future court proceedings against them.
The report considers the arguments advanced by Mr Cummings to see whether there were extenuating circumstances that might have justified his conduct, particular in relation to the risk of legal proceedings against him, which Government Members have mentioned today. The report concludes that the DCMS Committee had offered Mr Cummings a series of alternative dates for a hearing and that he had not supplied any evidence that he was at significant risk of criminal prosecution, or that suggested any significant flaw in that Committee’s inquiry or in its handling of witnesses. Legal inquiries into whether he or others might have been at risk of future criminal proceedings were assessed in the light of assurances that we received from regulators, which led us to understand that he himself was not facing criminal proceedings.
We agree with the DCMS Committee that Mr Cummings’s evidence would have been relevant to its inquiry—a few moments ago we heard more detail from the Committee’s Chair about why that would have been the case—and we agree that his refusal to attend was a significant interference with that Committee’s work. We conclude that he committed a contempt by his refusal to obey first the Committee’s order and then the House’s order. We recommend that he be admonished by resolution of the House, to be communicated to him by the Clerk of the House. We do not recommend the old practice of summoning him to the Bar, which we believe would merely give him an opportunity to grandstand. The motion before the House, in conjunction with the report that it approves, constitutes the admonishment. If agreed to, no further action by the House will be sought in this matter.
Finally—this point has been raised a number of times this afternoon—the report comments that
“the case of Mr Cummings has raised further questions as to the enforceability of the House’s powers and those of its committees to secure evidence”.
The Committee will therefore now return to its wider inquiry into these matters, referred to it in the previous Parliament, and we plan shortly to announce a series of oral evidence sessions. We hope to co-ordinate our inquiry with the Liaison Committee’s current inquiry into Select Committee effectiveness.
John Redwood
Will the hon. Lady’s Committee pursue comparisons to see what might be working more effectively in other democratic institutions?
Kate Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that excellent suggestion. I urge right hon. and hon. Member to submit their own evidence to the Committee—we will shortly publish details on how that can be done.
It has been apparent to all of us for some time that the current situation is unsatisfactory. I acknowledge that admonishment is a fairly feeble sanction against an individual who does not appear to feel a sense of shame at his own behaviour. The historical punishments used by the House—fining and imprisonment—have not been used for many years and, although they have not been abolished, it is highly unlikely that any attempt to use them now would survive legal challenge. None of the alternative options—they may be summed up as doing nothing, attempting to assert the House’s rights through resolutions or changes to the Standing Orders, or legislating to confer powers on the House—is without objection, which is why the problem is still with us; if there was an easy answer, something would have been done a long time ago.
Notwithstanding that, the Committee wishes to canvass options vigorously, including, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) suggests, by looking at how other legislatures around the world have dealt with the issue. We will focus not only on ways of strengthening sanctions, but at ensuring, as we have striven to do in this inquiry, that the House is fair and scrupulous in the way it treats witnesses. We intend to report to the House with proposals as soon as possible.
I will conclude by placing on the record my thanks to my colleagues on the Privileges Committee for their assistance in bringing the report to the House, to the Leader of the House for tabling the motion, and to the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for introducing the debate. I urge the House to support the motion.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
When Mr Speaker gave the admonishment from the Chair, it clearly had an impact on the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who I think thought that it was perhaps targeted at him, given the reference to not making long speeches about matters that are not pertinent to the motion we are debating. I must say that I felt that, rather as with Mona Lisa’s eyes, Mr Speaker was indeed looking directly at me, given his reference to taking a “liberal pen” and crossing out great swathes of a speech. I have therefore written my speech on the back of the Order Paper.
Tom Brake
Absolutely—two minutes, or thereabouts.
This debate is clearly about the rights of the House and the consequences of failure to observe those rights. I am pleased that the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) opened the debate, because I would have had some reservations had the Leader of the House done so. She of course has a connection with the Vote Leave campaign, and in the circumstances it might have been inappropriate for her to open the debate. We have heard from—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are discussing somebody who is not here. I do not think it is quite fair to suggest what that person would or would not do. The right hon. Gentleman would be right to stick to his two minutes about the subject, rather than go into matters relating to the Leader of the House.
Tom Brake
My speech may be a bit longer following that intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will stick to the subject in hand.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) did a good job of setting out exactly how arrogant Mr Cummings has been in relation to the inquiry and the false allegations he has made about the way he has interacted with the Committee. His lack of accountability rather fits a pattern of a lack of accountability in relation to the whole Vote Leave issue. I know I am not allowed to speak about that at any great length, but given the role that she played, perhaps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should consider revisiting the appointment of Gisela Stuart as the chair of Wilton Park, which is in the business of promoting good governance around the world. Other key players in the campaign include the co-convenor of Vote Leave, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not going to go through the people involved in the campaign. You were advised, Mr Brake, and you know much better than that. You are a much better politician and you do not want to test my patience or that of the House. Let us just move on with your two minutes.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let me conclude. It is clear that the action the Committee has taken and that we are going to take today is entirely appropriate. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, it will send a message to others. It would certainly send a message to others if we did nothing. As others have expressed today, I have doubts about whether the panoply of powers or punishments we have at our disposal is sufficient, but it is right that we pass this motion today.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
This motion is about basic respect for Parliament, for individual Members of Parliament and for Select Committees. Under the exemplary leadership of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), the DCMS Committee undertook an enormous task in carrying out the inquiry. Like all other Select Committees, the DCMS Committee is of course a cross-party group—we have Members from three separate political parties. We worked hard to produce two substantial reports that have been widely approved—by which I mean worldwide—and scrutinised very closely indeed. To obtain our evidence, we took oral evidence from a lot of individuals, many of whom were potentially under investigation, from businesses such as AggregateIQ, Cambridge Analytica and so forth. Under the Chair’s guidance, we exercised extremely seriously our responsibility to make sure that none of the individuals concerned, whom we thank for giving evidence, were prejudiced. We exercised judgment at different times about preventing evidence from being given that might in any way prejudice any other inquiries.
In response to that work, we have had the actions of this individual—I invite all Members present to look at the correspondence included in the two reports before the House—who shows utter contempt, first, for the Chairman of the Select Committee, which is completely uncalled for: and secondly, for the institution of Parliament. None of us here is anything without our office. We are elected to come here and to be impartial, honest and committed in the work that we undertake. All we ask for is basic human respect from those with whom we deal. If Members read the documentation and correspondence from this individual, they will see it is quite clear that he has utter contempt for Parliament, which is in many ways ironic.
We cannot allow to continue a situation in which individuals have such utter contempt. If, for example, during the period some years ago when I used to take part in magistrates courts proceedings and Crown court proceedings, this individual had corresponded with a judge in the terms in which he corresponded with the Chairman of the Select Committee and with Parliament, he would have ended up in the cells pretty sharpish. I am not suggesting that we do that, but I am interested in the work that is going to be undertaken from the position we are in, because frankly we need to put in place some form of procedure, which is not beyond the wit of man or, indeed, woman, to codify the process that needs to be followed in cases where Select Committees take important evidence. That is an urgent task, because we all undertake important work that we want to see done to the best of our abilities.
This is a case in which a contemptible person has behaved contemptuously towards this institution. He should be held properly accountable for that and a proper procedure should be put in place to make sure that the type of distain exhibited to this great Parliament should not be permitted again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House—
(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (HC 1490); and
(ii) endorses the conclusions of the Committee in respect of the conduct of Mr Dominic Cummings that the evidence sought by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee from Mr Cummings was relevant to its inquiry and that his refusal to attend constituted a significant interference with the work of that Committee; concludes that Mr Cummings committed a contempt both by his refusal to obey the Committee’s order to attend it and by his subsequent refusal to obey the House’s Order of 7 June 2018; and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18 December 2018 (Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Message
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Caroline Dinenage.)
Question agreed to.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 2nd April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Messages as at 2 April 2019 - (2 Apr 2019)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I should inform the House that neither Lords amendment in the message engages financial privilege. I remind the House that the motions relating to the Lords amendments in the message will be certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales. If the House divides on either of these motions, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed.
New Clause
Deprivation of liberty: code of practice
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 1 to which the Lords has disagreed, and disagrees with Lords amendment 1B proposed in lieu, but proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25A proposed to its amendment 25, but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to its amendment 25 in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Caroline Dinenage
We now have an opportunity to deliver reforms that will provide quicker and fuller access to protections for the 125,000 people who are not currently receiving them. That is 125,000 vulnerable people without the legal protection that they deserve, whose families do not have peace of mind, and whose care providers have no legal cover for supporting them. We now have an opportunity to rectify this situation.
In February, the other place considered the 56 amendments made to the Bill by the House of Commons, the vast majority of which were agreed with. However, the Lords tabled alternatives to two of the Commons amendments, and they are the focus of our discussions.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Minister has rightly pointed out that the Bill will provide a great advantage to those who are directly affected. I do not want to be a total patsy for my local authority, but will she explain what the benefit will be for local authorities, which are responsible for trying to protect people’s welfare and safety?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. This issue has been a huge burden for local authorities: they have had to carry out multiple deprivation of liberty safeguards often for the same people and often when those people move from one setting to another. That involves a huge amount of bureaucracy and does not offer any better protection for the individuals concerned. The new service will enable local authorities to do this in a much more streamlined and efficient way. It will save them money and, at the same time, offer better protection for the individuals about whom we all care.
Lords amendment 1B was tabled by Baroness Tyler of Enfield to set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty positively, rather than by using the exclusionary approach set out by the Government. Noble lords are, of course, absolutely right to want to ensure that any definition is understood by people and practitioners. However, a positive definition of a deprivation of liberty is likely to be subject to a legal challenge as article 5 case law evolves, and it would become unfit for purpose incredibly quickly. This is a view not only shared by the Government, but highlighted beautifully in the other place by the esteemed legal experts Lord Mackay and Lord Hope.
Lords amendment 1B does not link the definition of a deprivation of liberty to article 5 of the European convention on human rights, so creating a risk of the definition set out in statute diverging from the convention. This would mean that people who fall outside Parliament’s concept of deprivation of liberty but within the article 5 definition could not have their deprivation of liberty authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For those people, only the High Court would be available to authorise such a deprivation of liberty, which, in turn, would give rise to excessive delays in accessing vital safeguards.
That is precisely the situation that this piece of legislation looks to address—there are already too many people subject to delays when accessing safeguards, and we cannot introduce a provision that would further risk this.
Given that the Government have these concerns, we cannot agree with the noble lords in their amendment 1B. However, we know that concerns in the other place are reflected by many across the sector and we have taken that on board. We have listened carefully to the views of MPs, peers and other stakeholders and decided not to insist on amendment 1. Instead, I propose that the meaning of a deprivation of liberty will still be as defined under article 5 of the convention, as it is under section 64(5) of the Mental Capacity Act, but there will not be a clarification of the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in the Bill. The Bill will work alongside the rest of the Mental Capacity Act, so it does not impact on the existing definition.
I reassure the House that the Government are still absolutely committed to providing clarification regarding the meaning of a deprivation of liberty for both people and practitioners. We will use the code of practice to lay out in very clear terms and provide details of when a deprivation of liberty is and is not occurring, and this guidance will reflect existing case law. We will set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in a positive framing and in a way that is clearer for people and practitioners. We will also include case studies in the code to help bring this to life. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1B will prescribe that the code of practice must contain guidance on what kind of arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and I am reassured by what she says. It would not be appropriate, for example, to put case studies on the front of a piece of primary legislation. Will she outline the timescale for bringing that code of practice forward?
Caroline Dinenage
The code of practice is being worked on as we speak. It is very important that we take it forward in partnership with all the key stakeholders and those who are involved at the front end implementing the liberty protection safeguards. Once we are all content that the code of practice is robust and fully covers everything that we want it to it will then be presented to both Houses of Parliament.
This will mean that the definition will be considered regularly. It will remain up to date with evolving case law. It means that we are laying a report of the review before Parliament and that there will be a review within three years of the measure coming into force to ensure that it is working as intended. The review will extend to all the guidance related to the liberty protection safeguards contained in the code of practice and not just the definition. By regularly reviewing the code in this way, we will ensure that there is up-to-date guidance for people and practitioners and this will support the successful operation of the liberty protection safeguard system.
The amendment will ensure that the code clarifies when a deprivation of liberty does or does not apply and provide useful guidance for families, carers and professionals while also ensuring that we do not put a definition in statute that conflicts with article 5 of the convention and I ask the House for its support in this.
I shall briefly turn to Lords amendment 25A, which was tabled in the other place with the admirable aim of ensuring that the authorisation record is provided to the individual and other relevant persons in a timely manner. This followed the Government amendment that clarified the responsible body’s duty to provide information to the person and other relevant persons. Noble lords amended the Bill to specify that a record must be kept if the authorisation record is not provided immediately. If the authorisation record is not provided to the person within 72 hours then a review must be conducted.
The Government agree that it is very important to make sure that the authorisation process record is provided quickly. However, there are some issues with Lords amendment 25A that need to be addressed before it can be put into statute. For example, it does not make a specific person or organisation responsible for recording that an authorisation record has not been provided for completing a review, so the duty cannot be enforced. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendment 25A states:
“After authorisation arrangements, the responsible body must, without delay, arrange for a copy of the authorisation record to be given or sent.”
Government amendment (b) in lieu will ensure that if the responsible body has not done this within 72 hours of the arrangements being authorised, it must review and record why this has not happened. Providing information, including in the authorisation record, is so important to ensure that people are able to exercise their rights. The Government have listened and reflected on the concerns of the other place and have brought forward this amendment. I ask that the House supports it.
Finally, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Members of both Houses. We set out to consult very widely on this piece of legislation and to listen very carefully to the concerns of both Houses. Both Houses have very carefully scrutinised this crucial piece of legislation. I also thank many of the stakeholders who have supported its development. I thank the Bill team, particularly the Bill manager Sharon Egan, and officials across the UK and Welsh Governments who have worked with the team to deliver this reform. I thank, too, the legal team and my private secretary Flora Henderson. It is through a great deal of dedication and hard work that we will be able to rectify a failing system and provide protections to the 125,000 vulnerable people for whom it currently falls well short.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
When we last debated this Bill, I was clear that Labour did not think that the Bill was adequate to become law. The Minister has just expressed her thanks, but we did make it clear that it contained a number of serious flaws and this still remains the case. While improvements have been made in the House of Lords, they do not fix many of the concerns that we still have with this Bill.
The Bill still places more power than it should in the hands of care home managers. From organising assessments to carrying out consultations with the cared-for person, the Bill means that an untrained, or an ineffective, care home manager could end up carrying out the process in a flawed or improper way.
Recently, there was a focus on the scandal of abuse that happened at the Mendip House Care Home in Somerset, with six autistic residents with complex needs. The Safeguarding Adults Review carried out by the Somerset safeguarding board revealed a host of management failures by the National Autistic Society. The registered manager of that particular care home did not address the unprofessional behaviour of a thuggish gang of male staff. This resulted in the following abuse being meted out to the residents of Mendip House: they were “ridden like horses” by staff; forced to crawl on all fours; made to eat raw chillies; and, in one horrific instance, forced to eat food spiked with mustard, which caused the resident to vomit. The resident was then made by a member of staff to drink that vomit.
People living in Mendip House had complex needs and all would have lacked capacity to make certain decisions and all required deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Care Quality Commission had not receive any notifications that DoLS had been authorised. On care planning and recording, the review report on Mendip House states:
“Care plans were very poor with no mental health or Best Interests assessments recorded... DoLS not being followed.... recording poor, plans out of date...”
The Minister has previously said that, through this Bill, the Government
“are ensuring that people’s wishes are always considered and respected, and that people are safe, cared for and looked after.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 757.]
But I have just cited a case where the care home manager neglected both care planning and safeguarding, so what steps will the Minister take to investigate what happened at Mendip House? Will she ensure that such behaviour does not continue under the provisions of this Bill, given that so much power is given to care home managers? Today is World Autism Awareness Day, and we must do more than pay lip service to showing solidarity with autistic people.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a particular pleasure to called by you to speak in the Chamber. It is also a pleasure to speak in this debate to reflect briefly on a bit of the background as to why we need this Bill. Some 125,000 people are effectively subjected to this procedure but without the appropriate legal safeguards, so I welcome the fact that both Houses are now looking to support the Bill.
I welcome the Government amendments that have been tabled in lieu of the Lords amendments, and they take on their main thrust and spirit. As I touched on in my intervention on the Minister, it will be interesting to see the timescale for bringing in the code of practice. I accept that it needs to be done properly and be consulted on and that there must be appropriate case studies, but one of the reasons for supporting this Bill is to see that come forward relatively quickly so that there is certainty. Perhaps the Minister will put a letter in the Library that sets out the timescale.
I would not expect to hear a date picked out of the air and stated on the Floor of the House—that would be unreasonable and inappropriate—but it would be useful to get a sense of the timescale, because I assume that we are talking about months, not weeks or years. It would be inappropriate to include specific examples on the face of the Bill, but it is right that the amendments look towards the creation of a clear code of practice and review, providing the opportunity for the House to consider any reviews and hold Ministers to account, because this legislation relates to our most basic right: the right to choose where we live and what we do with our time.
Barbara Keeley
In the example I gave, residents who had lived in a care home for a long period had a manager who did not keep their care plans or any documentation, and they suffered terrible abuse. Such things do go on, and I am still concerned that we are giving responsibility to people who are already overstretched and may not be doing or may be unable to do a good job.
Kevin Foster
I accept the point. However, the hon. Lady’s example is not just about standards being ignored, because there was a raft of, bluntly, criminal behaviour and abuse. If we were having a longer debate about care homes and the regulatory system, we could look at whether having the Care Quality Commission cover such a wide range of areas is the best way of ensuring that such things do not happen, but Mr Deputy Speaker is always keen for us to stick to the topic of the debate.
The amendments relating to Lords amendment 1B are appropriate and slightly better than the original, and the amendments relating to Lords amendment 25A make eminent sense. It makes sense to record why something has not happened, because if there are concerns about the management of a care home, there should be a duty to record why something was not done, not just to review it. The management could in theory say, “I’ve reviewed it, but I didn’t record what I’ve concluded,” or try to come up with a conclusion later.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
On recording things, one issue that arose when we were in Committee related to fluctuating conditions. For example, if somebody were subject to a DoLS, but then medical evidence demonstrated that they could be released from it, that makes it even more important to ensure that records are kept and that there is absolute clarity around the reasons for deprivation of liberty.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We should not just assume that once a DoLS is in place it will be there for life. For some people, it may apply during a particular period of treatment or time, and things will fluctuate for some people if they recover to a point at which a DoLS is no longer appropriate because they are able to make their own decisions. As he says, the appropriate records must be kept to ensure that that is properly reviewed and borne in mind, so that a decision cannot be made that someone should be subject to this forever. There should be a rolling review, to ensure that those in charge of caring for a person and those overseeing the care are satisfied that it is still the appropriate measure, given its impact on the person’s life.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, given that there is consensus across the House, which is welcome. The Bill will be better for having these substitute amendments, inspired by the Lords amendments, and on that basis, I hope the House will endorse them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), as I do on many occasions. I agree with what he said. First, I thank the Minister for her commitment, for our comprehensive discussions and for making herself available for each and every person who wished to have input into this process, and hopefully the changes that the Government want to see will be passed.
The Government have gone to some lengths to ensure that this Bill replaces and improves existing legislation surrounding the deprivation of liberty as a matter of pressing urgency. The current system is not fit for purpose—many people in this Chamber and outside it feel that—and this legislative change by the Government is what we want to see.
The Bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendations, introducing a new system for people who lack capacity and need to be confined for care and treatment, ensuring that the system protects vulnerable people, is person-centred and includes a strong role for carers and families. I have had a chat with the Minister about this, and the Bill will also ensure that supported people and their families are supported and included throughout the process. That is very positive.
The supported person will be afforded their rights throughout the process by an appropriate person. The appropriate person will normally be a family member. Carers and families will be given a stronger role, with an explicit duty to consult them and the supported person. As someone who cares, along with my mother and son and others, for my brother Keith, who was in a motorbike accident some 15 years ago, I know the importance of the carer’s role across the whole process.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. For far too long, families have been left out of the equation when they should have been involved. There is an argument for looking at carers’ training and their suitability, perhaps through certification, because there have been lots of cases of abuse in the past. It has gone on for years, and we have to pay particular attention to that. The Care Quality Commission should be improved; it does not have the numbers to do the job. I often follow its reports in Coventry, so I have a good idea of its needs. Does he agree that those areas could be looked at?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. The Minister has responded to the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, myself and others in a spirit of generosity, and perhaps this legislative change does that.
I welcome moves taken to make the definition of deprivation of liberty as strong as possible. What the Government have done is clear. It is vital that the definition links back to the European convention on human rights and provides a sturdy basis to protect vulnerable people. That is good news.
Members have referred to the 125,000 people who are currently deprived of their liberty without the necessary protections in place. Through this legislative change—which will not be opposed; a very helpful attitude has been adopted in the House of Lords and on both sides of this House—can the Minister indicate what will be done to reduce the backlog?
The Government have been lobbied and have consulted the Local Government Association, charitable bodies and other interested people and groups. As a result, we have a vital opportunity for long-awaited reform, and the Bill needs to be passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I gave you my commitment that this would be a short contribution, and I intend to keep to that. I want to finish with two quick questions to the Minister. Can she explain how the role of an appropriate person will support and protect vulnerable people in the proposed new system? Secondly, will she confirm that the needs of the supported person and their families will be put first?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Just to help, the Minister would need leave to respond to those questions, so the hon. Gentleman is putting pressure on for something that is not available at the moment.
Jim Shannon
I would never put pressure on the Minister—not in a million years; I know my place. I suggest gently to her that those two things could be looked at.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who makes such thoughtful contributions. I will be brief, as we appear to have a large amount of consensus on this piece of legislation.
First, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the work she has done on the Bill, her extremely consensual approach to it and the way she has listened to concerns from Members on both sides of the House and consulted stakeholders widely. It has been a real pleasure to work with her on the Bill, and I thank her for that.
This Bill is critical because it concerns some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We have talked about the fact that there are 125,000 people waiting to be processed for deprivation of liberty orders, and the system is not working, but there are 2 million people who have impaired mental capacity in the country, and we need to get the system right for all of them, not just the 125,000 who are being let down by the current system.
It is also important to say that the Bill builds on more than three years of work and the recommendations of the Law Commission. It has been fully scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the other place has contributed to it, as have members of the Bill Committee. I have received many emails in support of the fact that it introduces a better system, gets rid of the bureaucratic box-ticking exercises in the old system and should be better for both the individuals who are deprived of their liberty and their families.
Barbara Keeley
The work that was done for three years was on a 15-clause Bill that is not this Bill. We discussed that plenty of times in Committee. I think it only fair to be accurate. This five-clause Bill is not the Bill that was consulted on, and it is not the Bill that had three years of work. It is not correct to claim that it is. We spent a lot of time in Committee trying to put right the things that were missing and taken out of the earlier 15-clause Bill, and it is better to be accurate about that.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Broadly, I was attempting to say that a significant amount of work has gone into this. I have heard overwhelmingly from those working in the sector about the importance of doing something about the current situation, because it is not working and cannot be allowed to continue. This is urgent.
It is right that the NHS and social care providers will be given a bigger role in the decision-making process, so that people under their care receive better care and their rights are protected. The fact that we have people outside the system unprotected at the moment clearly cannot be right and cannot continue. During the passage of the Bill, I raised concerns about how it will work for people with fluctuating conditions, and I have been reassured by the Minister that responsible bodies will be required to keep individuals’ circumstances under review. I welcome the fact that there is further detailed guidance on fluctuating conditions in the code of practice.
I turn to the amendments and particularly the debate about the best way to define “deprivation of liberty”. It feels like a sensible conclusion has been reached in order for us to move forward, with a plan to develop the definition further through the code of practice. These things evolve and are extremely complex, and we need a flexible system that meets the needs of our society.
To sum up, the old system is not fit for purpose. The Bill makes important and timely amendments. It is better for individuals and all those around them to ensure that they have appropriate protections for the very serious matter of depriving individuals of liberty.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 1 to which the Lords has disagreed, and disagrees with Lords amendment 1B proposed in lieu, but proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25A proposed to its amendment 25, but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to its amendment 25 in lieu of the Lords amendment.—(Jo Churchill.)
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:26 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 41 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the draft Geo-Blocking Regulation (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.
The statutory instrument will revoke both EU regulation 2018/302 and the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 in the event of the UK exiting the EU without a withdrawal agreement. This recognises that in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, there will be no way to enforce effectively the geo-blocking regulation on behalf of UK consumers.
Geo-blocking is the term used to describe traders discriminating against customers on the basis of nationality or of the location of the customer. The EU’s geo-blocking regulation prohibits certain forms of geo-blocking, including through mandating access to all versions of a website in the EU, preventing discrimination between EU customers when distance shopping online or otherwise, and preventing discrimination in the payment terms accepted. This regulation came into force on 3 December 2018. The geo-blocking regulation does not apply to copyrighted online content, such as movies, e-books and video games.
The Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 enabled the domestic enforcement of the geo-blocking regulation. The regulations gave powers to certain regulators and acknowledged the right of customers to bring claims directly against infringing traders. These regulations came into force on the same day as the geo-blocking regulation. In the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, the geo-blocking regulation will be transposed directly into UK law, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as retained EU law. The Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 will also continue to have effect after a no-deal exit, unless revoked.
It is necessary to revoke both these pieces of legislation as it will not be possible to enforce effectively the geo-blocking regulation on behalf of UK customers after a no-deal exit from the EU. This is because EU regulators will no longer be obliged to bring action against businesses through EU mechanisms for cross-border co-operation; UK civil and commercial judgments would no longer be automatically enforced in EU member states and courts; and the UK Government cannot unilaterally enforce the geo-blocking regulation across the EU.
Given that geo-blocking cannot be enforced unilaterally by the UK across the EU in the event of a no deal, it is not possible to replicate the geo-blocking regulation’s benefits for UK consumers in domestic law. The provisions of the geo-blocking regulation do not apply to transactions occurring solely within one country. Therefore, there is no benefit to UK consumers in retaining a version of the geo-blocking regulation that applies only to the UK.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I have a genuine question: will the Minister tell us how we can protect the British consumer in that particular situation?
Kelly Tolhurst
We are debating a no-deal SI, and leaving the European Union means that the law is disapplied, so by leaving the European Union we are moving out of those protections.
Furthermore, if we do not revoke the geo-blocking regulation, it would result in a competitive disadvantage for UK traders. They would have to continue giving EU consumers preferential treatment, while EU traders would not need to do the same for UK customers. To avoid this, which is in the EU’s favour, we propose revoking the geo-blocking regulation in the UK.
The effect of this statutory instrument is simple. The retained EU law version of the geo-blocking regulation and the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 will be revoked in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU. The substantive rules contained in the geo-blocking regulation will no longer have effect in the UK after that regulation is revoked. It is important to note, however, that this legislation will continue to operate in the EU. As such, UK businesses operating in EU markets will still have to comply with the EU regulation when dealing with EU consumers.
The changes made to schedule 13 to the Enterprise Act 2002 by the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 were undone by a separate statutory instrument, the Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Those regulations were debated and approved by the House on 30 January and were made on 6 February 2019.
The Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 enable the domestic enforcement of the geo-blocking regulation. They also provide for UK customers to bring claims directly against traders that breach the geo-blocking regulation. As the intention is to revoke the geo-blocking regulation in the UK and UK customers will not be able to rely on it thereafter, such provisions would serve no purpose.
A failure to revoke the geo-blocking regulation and the Geo-Blocking (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 would not preserve UK customers’ consumer rights. Those rights will in effect be lost if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The only effect would be to continue to impose obligations on UK traders while providing no benefit to UK customers.
The subject matter of this statutory instrument is partially devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The statutory instrument has been consented to by the Welsh and Scottish Administrations, and the Northern Ireland civil service was notified in line with the protocol agreement in place during the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive. I would like to take this opportunity warmly to thank the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland civil service for their ongoing co-operation.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I rise as a former Chairman of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in the Scottish Parliament. The Minister has mentioned the co-operation at civil service level. May I have the safety of an assurance that there is similar co-operation at political level between those who handle statutory instruments in Westminster and those who do a similar thing in Holyrood?
Kelly Tolhurst
I would like to outline the fact that this was given political consent: the Minister in Scotland wrote to us to give his consent for the statutory instrument.
In conclusion, the statutory instrument simply recognises the practical effect of a no-deal exit from the EU. The Government are seeking to ensure that UK traders are not unfairly subject to rules that do not benefit UK customers.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. She set out exactly what the existing regulations do and, to be entirely honest, what she is proposing in the case of no deal makes perfect sense. The regulations before us revoke the existing regulations that prevent undue discrimination across the European Union by the blocking of consumers in one country from accessing websites in another member state or by redirection to the member state of the consumer.
A number of questions arise from the Minister’s remarks and from at least one of the interventions she took. She spoke about the fact that these regulations are relevant only in the event of no deal. When she responds to the debate, will the Minister confirm that, if a deal is agreed, the Government have no intention of revoking these or similar regulations? She is engaged in a conversation at the moment, so I hope she heard that question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), who is no longer in his place, asked the Minister a very good question about how UK consumers will be protected in the event of no deal. His question highlighted just how important it is that we do everything in our power, particularly in these next 10 days, to avoid the disaster of crashing out with no deal. That is the best way in which to avoid having to revoke the regulation.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The shadow Minister has said that we need to do everything in our power to avoid the UK crashing out. Does he agree that voting for the withdrawal agreement would be the best way of doing that?
Bill Esterson
I think the hon. Gentleman is wandering a little from the issue under discussion.
Bill Esterson
I think he might be. Suffice it to say that that deal has been rejected three times, on the first occasion by the largest margin by which a Government have ever been defeated in the known history of Parliament. Quite apart from the undesirability of what is in that deal, I think we should probably move on. I have a sixth sense that it will come back for fuller debate on another occasion.
The Minister made a very strong case for cross-border co-operation, for maintaining the regulation and for a mutual recognition agreement so that we can maintain protections for consumers and businesses. I hope she will confirm that when she responds to the debate.
I am not able to confirm with absolute certainty that the revocation will deliver what the Government intend it to do. We have to accept the Minister’s word that it will do so. I have no reason not to accept it, but I do not have the technical expertise. The papers in front of us do not allow me to say any more than that, so I have to put on the record my reservations and those of my party. As ever with the statutory instruments we are being asked to approve, there is no impact assessment. The lack of published consultation responses also makes it that much harder for us to analyse what we are being asked to approve.
Businesses and consumers need confidence and certainty. I note from the explanatory memorandum that a number of business organisations were consulted. Perhaps the Minister could provide more detail on what they said. She has done so on previous occasions, so I look forward to hearing what was said in those consultation discussions.
The regulations that we are being asked to revoke are designed to prevent discrimination based on location. They exist to stimulate the internal market of the European Union and to support the free movement of goods and of free trade through the digital sector. They address the possible restriction on competition between businesses across the European Union market and ensure that consumers have access to the best offers, prices and conditions of sale. They do not limit trade for consumers to goods and services in their own country—that is a very important distinction—and that is precisely what has happened since the regulations were introduced at the start of last year. They also prevent website redirection away from businesses that are not in the consumer’s member state.
If we leave with no deal, the draft regulations will revoke the geo-blocking regulation completely. No deal would end the protections for UK businesses and consumers, as they would not be protected in the European Union. The Minister set that point out very well in her opening remarks. As she said, retaining the regulation in the UK would mean that we could be blocked but would not be able to block against discriminatory practices from within the European Union. Those points are well made in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.4 makes the point that
“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”
Paragraph 2.5 states:
“To avoid this asymmetry of enforcement obligations in the EU’s favour, we are revoking the…Regulation in the UK.”
I accept those points, which is why we will not oppose the revocation.
The revocation of the regulations would at least minimise discrimination, but that is a bare minimum and a low base from which to operate. It would be far better not to have to do this and to have mutual recognition after we leave the European Union and continue with an arrangement that protects our businesses and consumers against discrimination as far as possible.
The draft regulations are an example of what no deal means. After yesterday’s latest failure by Members from across the House—but from some parties in particular—to be prepared to find a compromise to avoid no deal, we are one day closer to the dire prospect of that outcome. Of course, the Government should have taken no deal off the table, so that MPs did not have to do so, to avoid what in all honesty are desperate, last-minute no-deal preparations. That is the only way to describe what we are being asked to do today, 10 days before a likely no-deal departure.
The CBI was one of the business organisations referred to as having been consulted. Although I do not have its response to the consultation—I hope to hear it shortly from the Minister—I do have what it wrote to the Prime Minister, in a joint letter with the TUC, about the consequences of no deal. Is it not refreshing to see the leaders of the employers’ largest representative organisation and the leaders of the workers’ representative organisation working so closely together, signing a joint letter to the Prime Minister? That is what leadership in this country looks like and it is a great shame that we have not seen more of it from politicians.
The joint letter makes it clear that no deal would be disastrous for the country—for businesses and for workers—and that also applies to the draft regulations, should they ever be needed. On a no-deal outcome, the CBI-TUC letter states:
“Firms and communities across the UK are not ready for this outcome. The shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come…avoiding no deal is paramount.”
They describe no deal as causing “reckless damage”—[Interruption.] It is a shame that those Members commenting from sedentary positions on the Government Benches did not support some of the alternative options available to us yesterday. The TUC and CBI call for a plan B, which has been rejected by those Members who have been heckling me for the past few seconds.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has just passed the Animal Welfare (Services Animals) Bill, which will give protection to police dogs and police animals.
Bill Esterson
I am delighted to welcome the passing of that Bill. I was not quite sure what that intervention was going to be about. I agree that it is an extremely welcome and important piece of legislation that has made progress in the other place.
The TUC and the CBI are calling for a plan B. I hope that, as we make further progress in finding alternatives tomorrow, we do that and avoid a no deal. If that is the case, the Minister will not have to invoke these regulations.
The revocation of the geo-blocking regulation is not the largest single impact of no deal; it is a small example of the consequences, and I hope it is not needed. I hope that the Minister and all hon. Members agree with that point.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister in addition to what I asked her earlier. I understand that there are businesses in the UK that currently use hosting services from EU providers. Can she reassure them about how that access will continue if the geo-blocking regulation is revoked in the event of no deal? The impact assessment takes a very narrow view and does not comment on the number of individuals using services from the EU in this way under the regulation. I hope that the Minister can give some sense of what the impact would be, what the likely outcome is, and how the Government propose to protect businesses in the event of no deal in this respect.
Consumers currently enjoy the ability to buy services and goods from across the EU. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government have assessed what the impact on them will be in relation to access to services and registration? Will businesses in this country be able to buy services from within the EU if the regulation is revoked?
I and other hon. Members have asked questions about the damage that no deal will do on a small scale through this one set of regulations. One way to express it is to say that these regulations show that the Government have failed to prepare; another is to say that they have not prepared because it simply is not possible to prepare for no deal. These regulations, like so much else that is going on at the moment, given the looming prospect of no deal, demonstrate that. We can overcome the danger of a disaster only by avoiding no deal. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will take note of that and will try to find alternatives. The Government’s deal will not go through, so an alternative needs to be found.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). I want to reflect his comments about the necessity of this statutory instrument, based on whether we have a no-deal outcome. This is effectively a no-deal prep piece of legislation. He is right that we want to avoid no deal. That is the preferred outcome of virtually no one in this House. Some hon. Members might be prepared to accept it if necessary. We cannot go into a negotiation saying, “I’m going to stay here until you finally force me to accept something.” That will never be a successful strategy.
There is an easy way for no deal to come off the table: to agree a withdrawal agreement. One of the ironies of last night’s debate is that there are only two outcomes that we could have without the withdrawal agreement, and the European Union has made its views clear. The first is no deal, and the second is no Brexit—the revocation of article 50. To be fair to Scottish National party Members, with whom I often exchange opinions across the Chamber, their view is that they will not vote for the withdrawal agreement because they would prefer to go for one of the options that does not require a withdrawal agreement—in other words, the revocation of article 50. It is therefore slightly strange to get a lecture from people saying that the deal will never go through but who last night voted predominantly for two options that are based on the withdrawal agreement going through as the divorce from the EU. They are arguing about what the future relationship should be, but the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to the future relationship.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is bemusement in Brussels about why we are dealing with something that is downstream—the political declaration—rather than the withdrawal agreement itself. As he said, it is either no Brexit or the withdrawal agreement. Take your pick.
Kevin Foster
Absolutely. Members who do not want no deal and keep coming to the Chamber and telling us, “No to no deal”—a great soundbite, but not a solution—need the withdrawal agreement to go through, unless they are prepared to stand up and say, “I would revoke article 50.” That is not the position that I will take, because I do not think it is right—the referendum settled that matter—and I am sure it is not my hon. Friend’s position. We therefore need to look at how we get the withdrawal agreement through.
I very much welcome the constructive approach to looking for compromise taken by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Sadly, their amendment was not selected, but hopefully it will be incorporated into the Government Bill. I note the Prime Minister’s comments on that. That would ensure parliamentary scrutiny, and it would ensure that Parliament is not unhappy with what comes out in the future relationship. [Interruption.] I see that you want me to relate my comments to this statutory instrument, Madam Deputy Speaker. Putting the withdrawal agreement in place would mean that we would not have to enact this type of statutory instrument. This is a no-deal—in other words, a no-divorce-deal—statutory instrument, not just a no-future-relationship statutory instrument.
Julian Knight
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He is always conscious of the clock.
Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum emphasises how disadvantaged we could be by a no-deal Brexit in terms of consumer rights? It says:
“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”
That seems like an absolutely ridiculous position to be in.
Kevin Foster
I have always been clear that 63% of my constituents voted for us to leave in the referendum, and ultimately we have to have no deal as a fall-back if all else fails. If Opposition Members are desperate to avoid that situation—if that is their absolute priority—they had an opportunity to do that on Friday, and I hope they will get another one in the near future. That is not ideal; having a transition period during which businesses can adapt is the right way forward.
If we do not pass something like this statutory instrument, we will end up in the rather unenviable position in which UK businesses will be required to follow a piece of legislation, yet businesses in the other 27 member states of the EU are not. In effect, they could have rules blocking access to their websites and portals based on the fact that we would no longer be part of the EU. Meanwhile, our law would say that—
Kevin Foster
If my hon. Friend just gives me a moment, I will finish responding to his previous intervention before I take another one. We would still have to keep that access, and that is why we need to look at revocation of these measures. I will briefly take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am conscious that I need to move on to the main body of my argument in a minute.
Julian Knight
I thank my hon. Friend again for giving way. Does this not also emphasise the fact that there are also downstream consequences? I am not talking just about the one that I emphasised from paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.3 also states:
“UK civil and commercial judgments would no longer be automatically enforced in EU member”
states. Does my hon. Friend agree that would have downstream consequences for the premier position of UK legal services as well?
Kevin Foster
I am conscious that I could probably expand this debate widely into legal services and the impact potentially from the recognition of judgments between different jurisdictions. A lot of people forget that the EU is not a sovereign state—I do not want it to be and nor does my hon. Friend. It is a creature of treaty, and its actions and rules are therefore effective only through the structures of member states—that is, recognition of court judgments that enforce EU law between different jurisdictions. He is right that if we go out under a no-deal scenario, from Brexit day plus one, that level of co-operation and recognition is unlikely. That is why this SI is needed. Bizarrely, the enforcement of these EU regulations could be pursued in courts across the EU, or even in our own courts, and meanwhile, a judgment looking to enforce to the benefit of a British company would not be recognised at all. It would basically be a bit of paper someone would get.
We keep coming back to the fact that if people do not want this type of outcome, they have two choices. There is the Scottish National party’s choice, which is to revoke article 50—[Interruption.] We can hear the cheers coming from SNP Members. Or we can put through the withdrawal agreement. That is where we are. We can talk about whether we should be in a particular type of customs arrangement, what we would like on security and defence, and whatever. At the end of the day, the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to every relationship with the EU, other than revocation or no deal.
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Are we not facing a Hobson’s choice? The hon. Gentleman says that we need to support the deal that is before us, but one of the things that I am struck by sitting in this debate is that we were meant to leave the European Union on Friday, yet we are dealing with a statutory instrument on the subsequent Tuesday. Is not the issue that the Government have forced us into this position because the Prime Minister, through her intransigence, set her red lines—like these red lines on the floor that have kept us on this side in this House—and said, “We do not want to listen”? That is why three or four days after we were meant to leave the EU, we now find ourselves being rammed into this position by Her Majesty’s Government.
Kevin Foster
Let us be candid: we are here because there are those in this House who do not want Brexit to go ahead, who voted against the withdrawal agreement—to be fair, that is a principled position from the SNP. This is combined with those who see it as a chance to score some political points, and there are some Government Members who think—perhaps wrongly—that there might be a different type of Brexit if they resist the withdrawal agreement. I am afraid that they might find themselves with an outcome that is more pleasing to the hon. Gentleman than it is to them, if their position continues.
Let us be clear: the Scottish National party and the Government in Scotland suggested after the referendum that basically, as long as we only left the fisheries policy, they would be happy with Brexit. In terms of staying in the single market and the customs union, it would be debatable whether we would even come out of the common fisheries policy—
Kevin Foster
I will give way again in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to offer a point of clarification.
That outcome would not really be about delivering any real benefits from the referendum. To be fair, I note that the SNP’s position is firmly that it wants to stay in the EU. That is a respectable point. I accept that we do not need the withdrawal agreement for that, but the nonsense comes when people say, “I want one of the outcomes where I have to have the withdrawal agreement, but I am now going to vote against the withdrawal agreement.”
David Linden
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is one of my genuine friends in this place. He is right that in 2016, the Scottish Government said, “We campaigned for remain. We did not want to leave the European Union,” but we realised very early on that because of the democratic deficit that exists in this House, we had to compromise. That is why “Scotland’s Place in Europe” looked at membership of the single market and the customs union. We compromised in 2016 when it was very, very unpopular to do so. There has been a process of evolution: we have gone from that compromise to what I accept is a very hard-nosed reality, where the only thing that we can do to protect our economy is to revoke article 50. Does he not agree, however, that it might just have helped things in 2016 if that spirit of compromise had evolved a bit sooner in this place and that we might not have found ourselves, three or four days after the scheduled exit, debating a statutory instrument that could have profound consequences, depending on what happens over the next few days?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We can all look back over the past three years and suggest that there were things that we might have done differently or changed.
“If? What? Could?” is great fun to play—hindsight has 20/20 vision—but the other 27 member states have their own red lines. The idea that if I or the hon. Gentleman had walked in as the UK Prime Minister, everyone would have said, “Ah, it’s you! What can we do for you? Let’s offer you a great deal” is for the birds. The other member states would still have had their own red lines.
As I said, the only things for which a negotiated deal is not necessary are a complete no deal and revoking and remaining—the latter for obvious reasons—but if we want a negotiated deal, we need the prism of a withdrawal agreement. There is a strong argument for saying that even if we did go down the no-deal route, we would find at some stage that if we wanted a free trade agreement, the first three items on the EU’s agenda would be: clarifying citizens’ rights, which is not particularly controversial across the House; a financial settlement—that might be where a debate comes in; and arrangements to keep the land border in Northern Ireland open. Whether under a withdrawal agreement now or a free trade agreement in the future, those three issues will almost certainly be the basis of any agreement, no matter which of the panoply of Brexit ideas we have been treated to over the last year or two the House, and ultimately the country, decides upon. Once the divorce process is complete, the second phase of negotiations and decision making in the House remain.
Great though it would be to settle Brexit this afternoon, it is time that I return to the substance of the SI: the geo-blocking regulation. [Interruption.] I hear shouts of joy from the shadow Front Bench. Geo-blocking sounds like something to do with a map—a rambler might find their geo-signal being blocked—but it is actually one part of making sure we have a single market online as we do for physical goods. Those of us who grew up in the late 1980s—I am not sure if my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is old enough, and I am certain the Minister is not—will remember the debate about how much a particular CD or tape cost in the UK, the United States, Canada, Germany and other countries. Nine times out of 10 a CD produced in the same factory, with the same copyright and by the same company would be more expensive in certain countries—that excludes differing VAT rates, of course, because that could change the price in the shop; I am talking about the base cost excluding taxes.
The regulation tried to prevent different prices in different markets arising from differing charging and supply. Those of us who studied European law will know that the Commission tried to eliminate this grey market idea of trying to restrict or increase prices in particular markets across the EU single market—a single market that we will remain a part of during the implementation period, if the withdrawal agreement goes through. The regulation was about making sure the consumers had the full opportunities. Such regulations make a difference. It is eminently sensible that we revoke the regulation—I agree with the Minister’s reasoning, and, as I have said, it would be bizarre if British businesses were under an obligation that EU businesses were not but which EU businesses could enforce against us under our law—but having in place some other appropriate measure would make a difference.
I hope therefore that we could consider that in future trade agreements—and not just with the EU. I have just given the example of the US. With increasing online commerce and trading, we should look to open up to other jurisdictions that use the English language and have similar commercial standards, consumer protections and quality standards. Under future trade agreements, we should look to ensure that businesses large and small that are buying stuff in across our borders can benefit from free trade arrangements.
Kevin Foster
I will give way in a moment.
We want to be able to benefit from a single market online, given that it does not matter if someone buys from Tewkesbury or Texas—or North Dorset, for that matter—if they are sitting at their computer, and as long as the delivery charges are there. It is about that principle of giving consumers access to be best prices possible.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend mentioned the English language. Does he share my concern that we often forget that it is a key part of our armoury? It is the international language. It is the language of the internet and the language of the skies, and it is now the lingua franca of the world. We should never forget that it is one of our great tools of soft power.
Kevin Foster
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for turning my back on him while responding to his intervention. I need to address the House, rather than face him directly.
The English language is indeed one of our great tools. When we look at any regulations relating to online businesses, we should bear in mind that the base code of computers is effectively English, because of the history of computer developments between us and the United States. The first computer, as such, was of course developed here, following the amazing theoretical work done by Alan Turing, who, sadly, was treated abysmally by this nation after the second world war in connection with matters that were never a crime. He came up with the revolutionary 01, and set the philosophical basis that would result in the very trading systems that these regulations seek to address.
This is one of our key goals. It is important that we have an effective and competent system of law relating to online transactions, because if we do not we will lose one of our biggest opportunities. My hon. Friend touched on that. Many people go online and happily access information, services and opportunities. They are able to compare prices in a way that would not have been possible before the internet era, because English is pretty much common currency on many internet platforms—although, given that the regulations relate to online shopping opportunities, it is worth noting that people can now interact with the vast majority of online retailers in the language of their choice. There are also the well-known providers’ translation services that we can now use. I used to have a bit of fun when a former Wales Minister texted to ask if I was here: I would reply in Welsh, courtesy of Google Translate.
I will move on, because I know that other Members wish to speak, and that the debate is time-limited. Some other issues on which the Minister may wish to reflect when she sums up relate to Ireland. We have had a great many discussions about the backstop and how we can keep the Northern Ireland land border open, but in these unique circumstances, someone purchasing online in, for example, County Fermanagh can be only a couple of miles away from the online business—or the business behind the online entity—which is based in, for example, County Donegal. There would of course be a different boundary, particularly in the no-deal scenario for which this measure is intended, and I should like to know how we can ensure that some sort of interaction remains. I think it is safe to say that it would be rather controversial if we did not give clear access to Irish websites.
That, in fact, makes eminent sense. There are businesses, cultural links, and supply chains and delivery networks that work across the border. One road crosses the border 15 times in two miles. If something that I had ordered online was being delivered using that road, the farmhouse involved might be in the United Kingdom and the hay barn in the Irish Republic. We need regulations that could deal with the unique situation near the Irish land border.
The Minister rightly referred to the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but Northern Ireland is beset by the fact its Assembly is not up and running and doing what those elected by the people of Northern Ireland should be doing. Although it is right that we are moving to ensure that Northern Ireland’s statute book is in order for a no-deal Brexit, it would be interesting to know what thought has been given to this aspect, given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not working and that, sadly, it is unlikely to be up and running in the next couple of months, when we may see a no-deal exit. What thought is being given at Westminster to ensuring that there is appropriate legislation to cover online shopping and, bluntly, to ensure that legislation requires fairness between websites and fairness in online shopping between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland?
Julian Knight
It is really interesting to focus on Northern Ireland in this. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be perverse if there were such barriers in the way, given that many of the major internet retailers are domiciled in the Republic of Ireland for tax reasons?
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his, as always, thoughtful intervention. I suspect many of us would not particularly want to rush to help them, shall we say, pay a lower rate of tax in the Irish Republic. During my time on the Public Accounts Committee, I had the joy of discovering that a “double Irish” was nothing to do with a whiskey order and a “Dutch sandwich” was not something I would eat with it—in terms of tax avoidance work.
For me, this is a question of how we can sensibly reflect in legislation the unique position on the island of Ireland. The current geo-blocking regulation provides protection, and there is reciprocity between the two jurisdictions, to ensure that each side’s shopping outlets and businesses may trade without discrimination. The purpose of the new regulations is to prevent the establishment of an operation that charges a different price—as in my CD example—or that blocks a customer living in a particular country from buying, or applies different terms and conditions to their transaction. It is worth noting, however, that there are some exemptions around items that are not permitted for sale. For example, in Germany and Austria there are strict denazification laws to prevent the sale of certain historical items. In addition, an item such as a toy train set from the era, if sold to the German or Austrian market, must not carry certain symbols from the disastrous Nazi regime that devastated those countries in the 1940s, along with most of western Europe. So there are some tweaks that rightly reflect the law in those nations, but in general the purpose of the regulations is to prevent unfairness.
I return to the point I was making earlier. For me, the regulations are about ensuring that the system in Ireland allows trade across the whole island of Ireland, where we would want to see that type of system in place, not just for sensible economic reasons but in view of the ongoing peace process—ensuring that the single market online across the whole of Ireland may continue. It would be bizarre if we agreed a workable set of alternative arrangements that released the backstop in years to come, but put a barrier around the sale of goods online.
In services, we may well look to move on—change our position to exploit our huge advantage, particularly in financial services, across the world, with trade deals. I am particularly excited at the prospect of a trade deal with the parties to the requests for a comprehensive agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership; there is very strong demand there. Given that we are revoking the current arrangement with the European Union on the basis of a potential no deal, I hope the Minister is considering how, if we do not have no deal, we could look at the type of regulation that might be of benefit and might allow insurance products and so on to be continued.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for a little while. I reassure hon. Members that I do not intend to break one of my records for length of contribution. I recognise that the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), wants to speak; I have no intention of talking him out.
There are a few reasons why we need to look at approving the regulations today. I am very much a fan of free trade. It brings prosperity. It brings down barriers, interlocking economies. Let us be candid—the reason that the European Coal and Steel Community was established was to interlink economies, and the geo-blocking regulations are part of doing online just what we did with coal and steel back in the 1950s. The idea then was that if the German steelworks were dependent on French coal, there would obviously be an issue if a conflict broke out. The theory was that creating a single market and having these types of regulations would ensure that that continued online and that consumers would benefit. They could buy from the best source in the cheapest and most efficient way, or perhaps in the way that provided the best quality, rather than finding themselves blocked out because of price differentials in the markets. In many ways, that might be a slightly unfair practice. I have used the example of CDs. Why should a CD cost more than others produced in the same factory—taking out distribution costs that are very similar—just because it happens to be sold in a different place? It often becomes clear that this is being done to milk consumers where choices are more limited.
This statutory instrument is necessary, but it is sad that it is necessary. Those who keep saying that they do not want no deal also seem not to want many of the deals that are on offer, or seem to want to propose a deal that is reliant on something that they keep voting against. That is not a logical position, but this statutory instrument represents a logical position. It would be absolute nonsense to impose a burden on British companies that is not shared by the other countries in the European Union. It would be bizarre, for example, if I had to comply with legislation ensuring that my website and online shopping offer were open across 27 countries when businesses in those countries were no longer obliged to do that.
It is right that we should pass this measure today and ensure that it becomes law, so that we have an orderly statute book, but there is a better option. Rather than saying, “I don’t like no-deal SIs because I don’t like no deal”, people should come up with a clear alternative that does not require the withdrawal agreement—[Interruption.] I hear the usual cheer from the Scottish National party Benches. SNP Members would like to revoke article 50 because they see that as the way round this, and they are correct in the sense that we would not need the withdrawal agreement. Members can be consistent in voting against the withdrawal agreement while saying that they do not want no deal if the outcome would be no Brexit, but they cannot keep turning up in the Chamber each day for a groundhog day debate and saying that the Prime Minister should do everything in her power to avoid no deal if they will not do the one thing in their power to prevent no deal, which is to walk through the Aye Lobby the next time the withdrawal agreement is put to the vote.
I will support this statutory instrument because in the end I would be prepared to accept no deal rather than no Brexit. However, I hope that in the very near future we will get an agreement through the House that provides the basis for a future relationship that makes sense and can be taken forward.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). I actually agree with a large percentage of his very detailed contribution, particularly in relation to some of the protections that are going to be lost. Before I get started on the substance of my speech, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my shareholding in the digital marketing company, Teclan?
I am amazed at how blasé those on the Government and Labour Front Benches have been about this statutory instrument. It is one of the instruments that will directly affect consumers and business owners across the nations of the UK almost immediately. Geo-blocking legislation is there for a purpose: to ensure that there is fairness for companies. Instituting this SI without any other provisions causes unfairness anyway: having it in place is unfair, and removing it is unfair too. It is one of those consequences of Brexit that highlights the foolishness of this whole process. There is a way to avoid the SI and a hard Brexit. We need to understand that Westminster has failed to make any kind of decision, that we should revoke article 50 and that we should get to the point where we can bring the choice to the people, with the option to remain.
Returning to the substance of the measure, the EU have introduced geo-blocking—we were in partnership on the legislation—to balance the growth of online platforms, with a need to protect small and medium enterprises and consumers. It focuses on transparency and new options for redress. In short, it treats EU citizens—currently us—and other end users in the same manner. It does not take account of nationality, place of residence or the place of establishment. The European Union’s “Notice to stakeholders: withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU legislation in the field of geo-blocking” says that from the date of application the regulation
“prohibits discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, including unjustified geo-blocking, in certain cross-border transactions between a trader and a customer in relation to the sales of goods and the provision of services within the EU. In particular, it provides for the following measures protecting customers: ban of discriminatory blocking or limiting customers' access to traders’ online interfaces (e.g. a website) and redirecting them to another online interface without the customer’s prior consent”.
That is the simple right for someone to get what they are looking for. The regulation imposes a prohibition on
traders to apply, in certain defined situations, on a discriminatory basis different conditions of access for customers to goods and services…informally known as ‘shop like a local’”
across the EU. The regulation provides for
“non-discrimination for reasons related to payment. As of the withdrawal date, natural persons residing in the United Kingdom (unless they have a nationality of a Member State) or undertakings established in the United Kingdom will not be able to benefit from Regulation (EU) 2018/302”.
There are no undertakings established by the UK Government, so there is a direct inequity.
The notice says that
“such persons or undertakings who wish to access websites in the EU will not benefit from the aforementioned ban related to access to traders’ online interfaces. This means that a trader could block, limit or redirect those customers to specific versions of his/her website which might be different from the one that the customers initially sought to access.”
Again, that is a clear removal of a right that we currently enjoy. The notice says that
“such persons or undertakings will not have the guarantee to be able to ‘shop like a local’ in the EU in the situations covered by Article 4 of the Regulation, including benefitting from the same prices and conditions relating to the delivery of goods and services as the locals (i.e. the customers of the trader's home Member State). For example, the off-line and on-line sales of goods and services, such as goods delivered or picked up in the EU territory, tickets for sports events or amusement parks in Member States, and the sale of electronically supplied services, such as hosting services, are areas where those customers will be affected…such persons or undertakings using payment means from the United Kingdom will not be protected against traders applying different conditions for a payment transaction from the ones offered to EU customers, or refused to complete the purchase for reasons related to payment, when (wanting to) pay electronically for goods or services.”
The notice goes on to list the rights that we will lose as a result of not being able to participate in the legislation on geo-blocking.
David Linden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and Romanian knight for giving way. He has outlined some of the dangers involved in pursuing this Brexit nonsense. Does he agree that none of this was written on the side of a bus, whether in Inverness or anywhere else in the United Kingdom? The only thing we can do now is revoke article 50 and stop this madness.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is right that that is the only way out of the hole being dug by the infighting in the Tory party, which is trying to settle a dispute that has lasted decades. This ham-fisted approach has left us in this guddle of Brexit and has put people in their homes at risk of losing out, of paying more and of being ripped off because we are losing these protections.
The regulations, as they stand, ban the blocking of access to websites and ban rerouting without a user’s consent, and they end payment discrimination through the revised payment services directive. People across the nations of the UK use online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon on a daily basis. I would be surprised if there is a Member in this Chamber who has not received a parcel from one of those companies, and certainly all our constituents, bar a very few, will have received something from these online marketplaces. Both third party traders and the marketplace itself are subject to these regulations. That means loopholes will now open that allow people to exploit consumers across the nations of the UK. These regulations are about treating customers in the same way across the EU, and the regulations are enforced so that people are not affected in that way.
The Minister said in her opening remarks that the regulations cannot be replicated. She said very directly that the regulations are impossible to replicate or replace, but is not the truth of the matter that there is no interest in doing so? The Government are hellbent on trying to persuade their own Members and the rest of the House to support a deal that nobody wants to support, and they are avoiding responsibility for doing anything that would protect the people who will be affected by this nonsensical situation.
That abdication is leaving loopholes all over the place. Citizens are losing their rights and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, any promises to make that up are about as good as a Brexit handout or what is written on the side of a bus. There is nothing here that will give comfort to any of our consumers or small and medium-sized enterprises—the ones who are most likely to be directly affected by the removal of this legislation.
Based on these regulations, from 2019 the Commission will publish certain tariffs for parcel delivery services on a website so that consumers and e-retailers can easily compare domestic and cross-border tariffs between member states and between providers. The website will highlight the highest tariffs to encourage consumers and small e-retailers to look for a better deal, and national regulatory authorities will be required to assess certain tariffs that seem unreasonably high. Regulatory oversight of the growing number of parcel delivery service providers will also be increased.
I mention that because Scotland already suffers from geo-blocking under this Westminster system. I have lost count of the number of times I and other Members with rural communities have brought up the postcode discrimination in both online and distance-selling deliveries to Scotland. Some £33 million a year of unfair surcharges are paid in Scotland for deliveries. Citizens Advice Scotland says this particularly affects consumers in Scotland, with 1 million Scottish residents paying, on average, an extra £19 for deliveries. Some 72% of the extra charges for deliveries directly affect Scotland. This is a long-standing discrimination, and the removal of these regulations, which protect people, can only make matters worse, particularly for people living in rural communities.
When I say “rural communities,” believe it or not, I am talking about cities in Scotland. I am talking about areas of high population density because, as I say, we suffer postcode discrimination. For example, a constituent of mine was asked to pay an extra £90 to have a mobile phone delivered to Nairn. These protections are not being delivered by the UK Government now, so what hope do we have with this regulation disappearing? I have another good example of where the EU has been able to protect internally. A crash helmet can be delivered from London to Inverness for a £29 charge. The same item could be delivered from London to Croatia or Estonia for £9.99.
I fear that others across the nations of the UK will begin to experience some of the discrimination that we in Scotland have seen over a number of years, and not just in the highlands and islands but in the borders and across large parts of mainland Scotland, because they too will now be subject to these inequities, as other Members have admitted today in their contributions. It is a reprehensible situation.
This statutory instrument brings forward no replacement protections. It does not even address the issue. It is predicated solely on getting through the Prime Minister’s dodgy, duff, dead-duck deal. That is the sole reason for bringing this through without any attention to detail. More rights are being sacrificed on the altar of Brexit. This Government must now put this and the postcode injustices right, especially for Scotland but also to protect others across the nations of the UK who will now be affected. They should do the sensible thing and agree that it is a disaster, as the removal of this regulation shows that there is no good no-deal Brexit; it is just a calamity that should be ruled out. They should then revoke article 50 until we get an opportunity to take this back to the public and give them the choice of whether to remain in the EU, with all the protections they currently enjoy, before those are sacrificed for this wonky ambition of the infighting in the Tory party.
Of course, there is one absolutely guaranteed way for the people of Scotland to enjoy these vital European protections so that we will no longer suffer from geo-blocking, and that is for Scotland to take its place as a fully independent country in the European Union.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Just to recap, the geo-blocking regulation is an EU regulation that came into effect on 3 December 2018. It is important to note that, up to the end of February, no claims had come forward to the Competition and Markets Authority. It does not apply to transactions that take place entirely within one EU member state.
The geo-blocking regulation prohibits certain forms of discrimination in the single market, specifically: blocking access to, or forced redirection away from, a website on the basis of an internet user’s location in the EU; discriminatory terms of access, which include but are not limited to price offered, on the basis of a customer’s location in the EU when selling goods delivered across a border but still within the EU, wholly online services, excluding copyright materials such as e-books, streamed movies, music and video games, or services delivered in a specific location, such as hotels and theme parks; discrimination in payment terms on the basis of a customer’s location.
The geo-blocking regulation could not function properly on a unilateral basis in a no-deal scenario. Effective enforcement outside the UK would be very difficult, because the UK would no longer operate within the EU’s consumer protection co-operation network or enforcement agencies. EU regulators would no longer be obliged to bring actions against businesses through EU mechanisms for cross-border co-operation. UK civil and commercial judgments, which were alluded to in the debate, would no longer be automatically enforced in the EU member state’s court, and the UK Government cannot unilaterally enforce the geo-blocking regulations throughout the EU without help from regulators in other member states.
Even if the geo-blocking regulations were not revoked, a no-deal exit from the EU would lead to a loss of protection for UK customers while imposing the same level of obligation for UK traders. The provisions of the geo-blocking regulation do not apply to transactions that occur solely within one country, so there is no benefit to retaining the version of the regulation that applies to the UK.
Let me outline the concerns relating to not revoking the EU regulation. EU consumers would receive preferential treatment in respect of UK traders, while UK consumers would be unlikely to receive any reciprocal benefits from EU traders. That is why we are proposing the revocation of the regulation. Revoking will preserve UK rights. It will not strip consumer rights, which will be lost in the event of a no-deal Brexit, but the regulation would continue to impose obligations on UK traders, with no benefits for UK consumers.
Let me answer some of the shadow Minister’s questions. He is concerned about the effect of this statutory instrument in a no-deal situation. I say to him: please support the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. We have been extremely clear that we would like to uphold and maintain the highest standards of consumer protection in the UK. If we agree to the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, we will be able to satisfy our ambition as a Government to maintain high consumer protections and to be able to enter into agreements and negotiations with the European Union so that we can maintain cross-border co-operation. That is what I would very much like to do. We should not only engage in the mutual exchange of information and evidence but work on a framework so that we can work collectively with the European Union on the wider detriment to consumers.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact assessment. He has rightly expressed concerns about impact assessments throughout the no-deal SI process. I have on many occasions tried to explain to him the reasoning behind what the Government have been doing in relation to some of these SIs. On this particular SI, we assessed the impact of the instrument to be de minimis because the costs are below £5 million. As the shadow Minister will know, that means that, in line with the better regulation framework, we did not need to carry out a full impact assessment. The assessment was that the maximum impact could be £1.2 million, based on around 75,000 businesses having to familiarise themselves with the new rules.
The shadow Minister also asked about consultation. On bringing forward this regulation, he wanted to know who we had spoken to and who we had engaged with. As he alluded to, we have consulted and spoken to business representative organisations, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Retail Consortium, and the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment. The feedback was that they had no strong views on these regulations. However, we did publish a technical notice on 12 October 2018, which clearly laid out our plans for geo-blocking in the event of a no deal.
Let me re-emphasise a point. We have heard a lot today about a potential loss of rights for consumers. I have always been clear in any Committee in which I have spoken on bringing forward no-deal legislation that, whatever the outcome, we are both prepared for and committed to delivering on the high standard of consumer protections that we already have in the UK. We also have a track record of consumer protection in this country and of going above and beyond; in fact, many of the consumer protections in this country go further than those of the European Union.
Drew Hendry
The Minister says that this Government go further than many others. Can she therefore address the conundrum that I raised earlier: why are consumers in Scotland paying so much more for delivery, but being treated so badly compared with other consumers? Why is that still happening if what she is saying is a fact?
Kelly Tolhurst
I was going to come on to that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. He and many of his colleagues—as well as many of my hon. Friends—have raised the issue of Scotland’s surcharges for parcel delivery. He will know that I have been working with the Consumer Protection Partnership to see how we can ensure fairness across the British Isles, but I must remind the House that we are talking about individual parcel organisations—as opposed to the Royal Mail—using these surcharges. However, it is true that many organisations are unable to use Royal Mail to distribute their products throughout the country. I remain committed to working with colleagues across the House to resolve this issue and to enable fairness for consumers right across the UK. He is right to raise it and I do take his point.
I just want to return to the point that I was making about consumers. If we want to make sure that we are able to enter into good agreements in terms of cross-border participation and consumer protection and to work with the European Union, my view is—and I will be clear about this—that we should vote for the withdrawal agreement. [Interruption.] Hon. Members reject a no-deal Brexit, but they are not prepared to support something that is on the table that would enable us immediately to have those conversations—
David Linden
When might we have the opportunity to vote for the withdrawal agreement again?
Kelly Tolhurst
Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is asking me that question because he wants to support me and my colleagues on the Government Benches. It is quite right that any responsible Government would prepare for a no deal, and that is exactly what we are doing. I must remind colleagues that this regulation came into force in December last year, and, where we have had to enforce it, there have not, as yet, been any complaints.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Lady demonstrates that she and I are in agreement about the benefits of geo-blocking and the current arrangements that we have as members of the EU. This regulation is about no-deal preparation, and we will lose those benefits if we leave with no deal. Perhaps she can tell the House what preparations she and her Department have made to ensure that, if we do manage to avoid no deal, there is a mutual recognition agreement that keeps these provisions in place.
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman’s question suggests that he is considering supporting the withdrawal agreement, because he is asking me about the preparations that we have made in the event of that happening. We have been quite clear that we have to agree the withdrawal agreement. As we have said in our technical notices, and as I have said in many SI Committees, we will be working with our neighbours to ensure that we are able to enter into mutual co-operation agreements if the withdrawal agreement is passed.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
As the Minister was speaking, I was mulling over the point made by SNP Members about the greater charges for having things delivered to Scotland. I can understand their point; it does seem a little unfair. But has the Department had a chance to do the maths? Is it not clear that my constituents, who are contributing to the Barnett formula, are actually paying more than the people who are receiving goodies from Amazon, eBay or any of the other excellent retailers?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that particular point. I have made it clear that we need to get into a situation whereby we can enter into close co-operation on consumer enforcement. What happens on geo-blocking will depend on whether we leave the European Union with a deal, but we are here today to talk about a no-deal SI.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) has disappointed me by saying that he will not support the SI this afternoon. As I have outlined today, the very act of leaving the European Union without a deal would make the EU regulation redundant. It would be perverse for us to keep a regulation that would put UK traders at a disadvantage compared with EU traders.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister is talking about not disadvantaging UK consumers, which is a very laudable aim; that is what we all want. Does that mean that she will align with the European Union when it brings in a standard minimum expiration period of five years for gift cards?
Kelly Tolhurst
I remind the hon. Lady that we are already going above and beyond what the European Union is doing on many consumer protection matters. The UK is working on further protections. We will always be mindful of what is coming from the European Union, and we will always be minded to go further. I will ensure that UK consumers are protected as far as possible, and I will be looking into strengthening many measures in the near future.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister is being very generous with her time. Can I take from what she has just said that she is indeed going to bring in a five-year statutory expiration time for all gift cards? I have been urging her to do so and I have not quite had a yes. Has she given me a yes today?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady will know that we are discussing an SI related to geo-blocking, not gift cards, but I am happy to talk to her about gift cards and to make her aware when we decide to move forward with any changes or improvements in that area. I assure her that I am absolutely committed to protecting consumers in this country, and this Government will be working hard to ensure that we do that whether or not we get a deal.
This statutory instrument simply recognises the practical effect of a no-deal exit from the EU, and it is important for ensuring that UK traders are not unfairly subjected to any rules. I am therefore disappointed with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for saying that he will not support the draft regulations this afternoon. Failure to revoke the geo-blocking regulation would not preserve UK customers’ consumer rights, which would effectively be lost if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The only effect of non-revocation would be to continue to impose obligations on UK traders while providing no benefits to UK customers. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Protection of Trading Interests)
That the draft Protecting against the Effects of Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 7 March, be approved.
Constitutional Law
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)
That the draft Heavy Duty Vehicles (Emissions and Fuel Consumption) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 26 February, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the draft Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Food)
That the draft Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.
Business Rates
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for affording me this opportunity to have a long dilation on the subject of business rates. I am under no illusion: I do not think my popularity is why so many people are present. It is all to do with the popularity of and the worry about business rates and their effect on our high streets up and down the country. I am sure Members will have an infinite number of examples of how their high streets have been disadvantaged by the impact of business rates.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend has misled the House, although unwittingly. He is very popular; it is his natural humbleness and modesty that prevails upon us today. In Ledbury, which has one of the finest high streets in Christendom, there are only two shops that are part of the chains that can be seen on ordinary high streets, yet the shops in my constituency, like those everywhere else, are under tremendous pressure. More and more of them are becoming charity shops. Although none of us has anything against that, it is surely a sign of a deep unhealthiness in our high streets.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Ledbury comes second in Christendom after Cirencester, which is beaten by no high street town in this country. My hon. Friend is right, of course. The 80% rate relief that charitable shops get encourages a large number of them. I have a substantial number in Cirencester, although they are in the secondary streets, rather than the main square. I can perhaps beat Ledbury, in that I had only one major chain in my constituency. It was the House of Fraser, and it has recently gone bust, so as far as I know, I have no major high street chain in my constituency.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
However modest we may be about each other, it is the popularity of both the subject and of my hon. Friend that has drawn the crowd. In addition to shops, will he talk a bit about the rating imposition on automatic cash machines? Cash machines are needed in many places where the banks have gone, and if the rates go up on them, we will start losing them as well.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend reads my mind. A long way further in my speech, I have a little section on ATMs. ATMs and public loos get a good allowance under the rating system, so I will be talking about that.
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend remembers well that a long time ago—1997—I used to live in his constituency. In fact, we worked on his election campaign together. At the time, the Cotswolds constituency was booming with pubs and businesses. The high streets in Chipping Campden and other villages were doing incredibly well, but what we now see as a result in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, is that there has been a churn in businesses, because many of the small and medium-sized businesses, due to the high rates and high rents on the properties in his beautiful constituency, find it incredibly difficult to sustain the costs of both high rent and high business rates. This problem is found not just in his constituency but across the UK, due to the high rateable value of properties. Does he agree that we need complete reform of the business rating system?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I well remember meeting my hon. Friend for the first time in the Eight Bells pub in 1997, when we were both a little younger—[Interruption.] She says, in parentheses from a sedentary position, “better looking”—I was not going to say that in case I came within the bounds of the code, which I think might well touch on the sort of remark that I might make. Nevertheless, I wholly concur with her sedentary remark.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I put on record that I have been trying to take action for a number of years to exempt public conveniences from business rates. Especially in respect of the towns in my constituency—Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Cliftonville are tourist areas—I have always said that public loos are often the first thing that people use and the last thing that they remember, and they should be thus exempted.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sure that the tourists in my constituency will be greatly relieved to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. In my constituency, which is very dependent on tourism, I have been having a big battle with the local council to keep public conveniences open, because it is really important. If someone comes for a day’s outing to the Cotswolds or goes to my hon. Friend’s constituency, they cannot last all day. They need somewhere to go, and I was delighted when the Government gave that sort of relief.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Oh my God, I have got competition. I will give way to the hon. Lady first.
Rachael Maskell
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have debated business rates on numerous occasions, because York, which is known for its retail offer, currently has about 50 empty properties. Does he agree that the business rates system is broken and that we need to move forward to a turnover tax or a profit-related tax, thereby enabling a much fairer system to be in place?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Lady in the Chamber today, because she was one of the very few people who were present when I held my Adjournment debate on this subject on 8 October last year. If memory serves me—I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong—I think that on that occasion, she told the House that there were 24 empty shops in York. If it has gone up to over 50 now, that demonstrates a deteriorating situation. If I have the figures right— she is smiling so perhaps she would like to give the House correct figures for last year compared with now, if she knows them, but if not, I have them here and I will look them up at some time during the speech—clearly business rates are having a deleterious effect on the high street. I will come to that in my speech.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman and I came into the House together, so we know each other quite well. To be frank, we have had many debates about rates in general terms, whether they were about the poll tax or business tax and so on, and quite frankly, it is about time—I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries)—that there was an inquiry to have a good look at the whole system of funding local government in this country. What is happening now is that a lot of local government expenditure, because of the reduction in Government grants to local authorities, has been shoved under business rates. As I said about 18 months ago, we cannot go on like this. Something has to give and we have to look at that properly.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right: we have known each other and been friends for a long time, and he has had a long interest in this subject. I will certainly come on to the subject of wholesale reform of the business rating system. Indeed, the British Hospitality Association, which I will refer to later, is calling for a royal commission to look into wholesale reform of the rates. Indeed, it was a manifesto commitment of my party, but the party seems to have gone cold on wholesale reform of the business rates system, for reasons to do with protecting the £30 billion of revenue it raises, as I will refer to in a moment.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As the manifesto seems to be very popular this week, I will read from it. We said:
“we will also conduct a full review of the business rates system to make sure it is up to date for a world in which people increasingly shop online”.
The pretty market town of Alresford in my constituency has a chocolate box row of shops that includes a beautiful bookshop, but people increasingly tell me they use it to look, view and try, and then go online to buy the books. It is totally untrue that the Government have not done anything to help with businesses rates—we have supported those affected by the revaluation, introduced the discretionary rates scheme and said we will introduce more regular revaluations—and the very good Minister, who is in his place, has done a lot. That said, it is probably time to consider a more structural change away from just property—I understand why the Treasury likes property taxes—to a more transaction-based tax, which might help bookstores such as the one I referred to in Alresford.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention, and I want to reassure him and the Minister that I have not called this debate to criticise the Government. I called it to come up with some helpful and positive suggestions for how we might reform system, wholesale or otherwise, while bearing it in mind that we need to raise that £30 billion. Clearly, the Treasury cannot afford any reduction in that amount.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is the fundamental problem one of the taxation system or the nature of retail and our changing tastes? In my view, the rating system does not help—it sets high streets at a disadvantage—but fundamentally people have changed the way they shop, and retail has to respond with a better offer and experience.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I have a section in my speech about the changing circumstances of big online companies vis-à-vis the rating system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I will get a little further in my speech and then accept a few more interventions. If I can make some progress, hon. Members might see where I am coming from.
The Red Book says that the amount collected by the business rates in 2019 is about £30.9 billion, but even this simple proposition is clouded by how much the Government have to provide for a loss on appeals, which alters the uniform business rates multiplier to allow rates under legislation to rise by at least RPI every year. Whatever happens to appeals, rates or reliefs, the Minister and his Department have to make up that £30.9 billion elsewhere.
I come now to the kernel of what I want to say today, and this in part addresses the interventions from hon. Friends. The OECD revenue statistics database makes it perfectly clear that the UK tops the league of taxation on immovable property both as a percentage of taxation and as a percentage of GDP by some margin. The UK paid 9% of rateable taxation in 2016. Our nearest rival, France, paid 7%; Germany just 1%; and Luxembourg barely a quarter. This must be a major reason why manufacturing business is not as competitive as in our nearest European rivals.
To shore up this £30.9 billion of revenue, the Treasury has had to increase the complex array of reliefs and allowances to compensate for some of the most damaging consequences of the tax, so in every Budget more or less, one sees a new allowance or relief to mitigate some of the worst effects of the tax. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has already done, I refer the House to my previous debate on this subject on 9 October 2018, when, as reported at column 117, my right hon. Friend the Minister listed some of these many reliefs.
We were all pleased when, in his Budget on 29 October last year, the Chancellor recognised that many small retail businesses were struggling to cope. I am sure that Members throughout the Chamber can give examples of businesses that are struggling to cope with the high fixed costs of business rates.
Alex Chalk
Nurseries in Cheltenham provide a vital public service for parents, enabling them to go to work, but they are marginal businesses, and it is very hard for them to make money. Circus Day Nursery has written to me saying that it is struggling with the impact of business rates, and that the Government’s great intentions to allow local dispensations to be provided by councils are not being pursued in practice. Has my hon. Friend any views on the impact of business rates on the viability of the local nurseries that are so vital to our communities?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I do have a view, as it happens. Later in my speech I shall be dealing with discretionary hardship relief from local authorities. Some of that could go towards my hon. Friend’s struggling nurseries, but the problem is that cash-strapped authorities are reluctant to give any discretionary reliefs at all. When we reach a point at which rates retention is one of the only sources of income for the small borough and district councils, they will be even less willing to provide hardship relief.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My goodness! My golly! Actually, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) was first.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent intervenes, I must make two points. First, I think it important for the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) to be allowed to finish responding to one intervention before being interrupted by another. Secondly, I know that it is very tempting to look at the Member who has intervened, but it is a good idea to face in this direction because of the microphones. Obviously, no one would want to miss a word of the debate.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The reason for my enthusiasm about intervening at that particular juncture was my wish to raise a point that is remarkably similar to—if not the same as—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). A couple of weeks ago I visited a nursery in my constituency whose staff told me about exactly the same problem. Business rates are a huge challenge to its success as a business, but it provides a very important service for local parents—especially mums, but also dads. Regulations require them to have a certain amount of floor space, so they are hit pretty hard by business rates. I am keen to hear the section of my hon. Friend’s speech that deals with possible cases for extra support, and I hope that nurseries will be considered in that regard.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not facing you. Of course I should like to face you all the time, but my hon. Friends have been tempting me in the other direction. I will try not to be tempted again.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem for nurseries is partly a business rates problem, but it is also connected with the pledge in our manifesto to grant free nursery spaces for an extra number of hours. That means employing extra staff, which the nurseries are finding hard to do. Nurseries—and I visit some in my constituency—are facing difficulties of all sorts. We must help them where we can. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s intervention; perhaps he will say that we can help in some way.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend. I now cannot remember what I was going to say. [Laughter.]
My hon. Friend has identified the high street as an important aspect of business rates. In the last few years, the saviours of many high streets have been casual dining and high-quality bars and restaurants, and in many places the rateable values are so high—above £100,000 in many cases—that none of those businesses has benefited from the generous allowances and discretionary reliefs provided by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that we do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has touched on another subject with which I shall be dealing later. He will know that the British Beer and Pub Association has made specific recommendations on pubs. Suffice it to say that in all our constituencies, the hospitality industry is one of the few very bright lights on the high street. The numerous restaurants, bed and breakfasts and hotels are the one thing that is keeping most of our high streets going.
I welcome very much my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s statement in his Budget that small retailers in England with a rateable value below £51,000 will get a third discount on their bills. I know that that will have been a great deal of help to a lot of small businesses in this country, and a lot of small businesses in my constituency have told me how grateful they are for that relief. I congratulate the Treasury on that.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. I entirely commend the Government for the package of business rates relief that has been given, although I recognise, as he does, the pressures that high streets are under with the business rates system. I also would be interested in a thorough reform of that system. Does he agree that, in the meantime, there are many things that local authorities can be doing to drive footfall and to help the high street? I am thinking particularly of West Oxfordshire District Council —his neighbouring authority, of course. The two adjoining local authorities work closely together. They have a flagship policy of free car parking, which has done a great deal to drive footfall and to help the high streets, particularly of Witney and Chipping Norton, where we have a plethora of great independent shops. In many ways, those high streets are thriving. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities such as West Oxfordshire should be commended for that, and that we could see that practice spread throughout the country, which would help the high street?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I totally agree with my neighbour’s intervention. His towns are much the same as mine; they are small market towns with a lot of independent retailers. He is right that anything that our local district councils can do to encourage those local independent retailers is helpful. In Cirencester, for example, they have a scheme whereby parking is free after 3 o’clock —just the sort of time when perhaps the high street was beginning to slow down—to encourage more people to come in later in the afternoon to do their shopping. That is precisely the sort of intervention that a local authority can make to help struggling retailers in our constituencies.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is not without friends on the Opposition side of the House. He knows my constituency well because he pursues sporting interests in it, and his aunt and uncle—very nice people—are constituents of mine. He knows from his sporting interests that one must give the gillie a tip. If I may draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to his future remarks about ATMs, the distance between ATMs militates against easy access. Where I come from, it is necessary to travel a very long way indeed to get to a cash machine. I would suggest that that is not at all good for the local businesses.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The hon. Gentleman has been a friend of mine for many years, and my family and his have been friends for even longer, so I do know his area very well indeed, especially his family town of Tain. It is a relatively recent phenomenon that the Valuation Office Agency has started rating ATMs. There is a particular quirk in the system: if an ATM is situated inside a bank or a post office, it is not rated, but if it is situated on the wall of the bank or post office, it is rated.
The hon. Gentleman and others—particularly in Scotland, because of the distances that they have to travel—have had numerous debates on bank closures, which may result in the removal of the one ATM in town. I am sure that a factor in the banks’ decision in closing those ATMs must be that they are now rated, whereas hitherto they were not. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might look at that, particularly for all market towns. Up and down my constituency, all my market towns have lost ATMs in the last few years, and in some of those market towns only the post office still has an ATM facility. Now even the post office in some of those market towns is coming under threat. That is becoming a real problem for my constituents—particularly constituents with businesses who need to withdraw cash.
Mr Marcus Jones
Many ATMs are in petrol station forecourts and convenience stores. Many of those places are situated in some of the most deprived communities, and as a result of the business rate levied on those machines, quite often they are put in those stores on the basis that people have to pay to withdraw their cash. People who withdraw £10 or £20 quite often end up paying £1.50 or £2.50 to get their money. Would it not be helpful if the business rates on ATMs could be looked at, so that, hopefully, more people could access their money without paying an exorbitant charge?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard the plea from those of us who represent rural areas, where the one or two ATMs in our market towns play a very significant part.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend have any idea of the logic behind an ATM on the outside wall of a bank having to pay business rates when those that are inside do not? It beats me! Perhaps there is a reason, but I do not understand what it would be.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I understand that there are two reasons. The first is that the Valuation Office Agency can get away with saying that an ATM on the outside of the building is, in the jargon, a different hereditament from the main building on which it sits. The second argument that is given in the official explanation is that ATMs are often not run by the same company as the building on which they sit, and that as it is a different company, it can be rated as such. Those are the official explanations, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is far more expert in these matters than I am, will be able to give us a better one.
Returning to the £51,000 and the question of discretionary relief as opposed to allowances, the Minister knows that this is the core of my speech. It was the core of my speech last October, and it is the core of my speech today. This £51,000 is still a discretionary relief. While the majority of local councils have now pledged to provide the resources for their local businesses to benefit from this change, there are some that, regrettably, have not been forthcoming with their support of this measure, either by delaying their decision to implement it or by putting systems in place that require businesses to apply for the relief, firmly putting the onus on businesses to take time out from their day job to claim back money that is rightfully theirs. That means that businesses in those areas are being disadvantaged.
Of course this still does not resolve the complexity, and I believe that simplicity is always the key. We all know that small businesses are under increasing and unfair pressure from out-of-town retail parks and online retailers, and I am sure that Members here tonight will have lots of examples of that. For example, for every £1 in business rates that our small high street operators are taxed, the big online and out-of-town retailers pay significantly less, averaging around 16p. We can immediately see the competitive disadvantage for high street retailers, compared with the large out-of-town retailers and big online organisations.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. There is an area that has been left out of the discretionary discount, and I wonder whether he agrees that the Government ought to look again at the guidance on this. I am talking about grass-roots music venues. We have lots of them on our high streets. This was raised with me by the Creative Innovation Centre in Taunton. These are places where many of our young musicians find their feet; it is how Ed Sheeran started, for example. They also generate money for the local economy, and I believe that they ought to be classed with pubs when it comes to the discount because they also serve food and drink. I believe that a special case should be made for them. It would cost only £1 million over two years in money “lost” to the Treasury, but it would generate so much more for the economy if they could be included in these discretionary rates.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has made yet another good case for a completely different class of business to have this relief. We can see the complexity of the rates system, and it is probably a good idea that we should have a royal commission to look into business rates in their entirety, as the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Hospitality Association are calling for, to see how they can be made to work better.
Rebecca Pow
I forgot to say that a lot of information about this arose as a result of the inquiry by the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport into the UK live music industry, as it was one of the things that was highlighted. It is stifling our young talent coming through the chain.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am all for anything that encourages our young talent to come through the chain, as my hon. Friend puts it. One of the great strengths of this country, as I meant to say when I opened this debate, is the 5.7 small and medium-sized businesses in this country, especially the 0.5 million new businesses that have been formed in the past five years or so. They are all capitalists risking their capital, many of them with a mortgage on their house to support their business. They work hard, and they succeed, and hopefully those small businesses will become medium-sized or large businesses.
All Governments of all colours have always been tempted to impose more taxation and bureaucracy on those small and medium-sized businesses, because they are easy targets and they do not move. What we should be doing is the reverse—making it easier for them to exist and make profits.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to secure this debate. He is making a really powerful case on the importance of small businesses in our communities. Is it not interesting that there are no Opposition Members here at all, while Government Members, even as the House is about to adjourn, are standing up for small businesses? As Conservatives, we are the party for small businesses. I very much commend my hon. Friend’s recommendation that we look in the round at what we can do to simplify taxation on small businesses. That is really important, but as we do so, I have noticed something positive about business rate retention. Local authorities are now working far more constructively with small businesses, so that that income raised in that community flows to them. Local authorities have to be concerned about small businesses, whereas in the past, when they got cheques from central Government they were not so focused on them. In the new scheme, let us think about the link between local authority funding and small businesses.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend, along with most of my hon. Friends, if not every single Member who is in the Chamber, is passionate about defending small businesses. I can see that she is shortly going to make a speech to support her small businesses—perhaps very shortly; I cannot possibly foretell.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Yes, because my hon. Friend has been very patient.
Bob Stewart
As a small factual correction, when my hon. Friend said “5.7 small and medium-sized businesses” he meant 5.7 million. That is a small point, and I know it was a slip of the lip.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Indeed it was a slip of a lip. The figure of 5.7 million small and medium-sized businesses is terrific, and shows the entrepreneurialism in this country, which is why our economy is doing so well and why we have such full employment at present.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend on the debate, which is incredibly wide ranging. I should like to touch on wholesale reform of business rates. The Government have done an awful lot of good work to give discretionary rate relief and to support SMEs in constituencies and towns such as Witham. Does he not agree that wholesale rate reform could be the gateway or avenue to get local authorities in particular to invest in town centre development strategies that could help to grow the base of small business and achieve a much more sustainable local economy that meets local needs as well as helping entrepreneurs and small businesses in towns such as Witham and places across the Witham constituency, and the country, to continue to invest and develop?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to be far more innovative, as the world is changing. The digital world is foisting change on us, whether we like it or not, and our local councils and our local people have to be far more innovative and entrepreneurial. That is why I welcome the system that the Treasury has brought in, which will allow local authorities to keep a bigger proportion of the rates of new businesses, as opposed to existing businesses, to encourage them to do precisely the sort of scheme she mentions.
Ms Dorries
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. He is incredibly generous.
On innovation, Flitwick high street in my constituency could not be more different from Chipping Campden high street in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Given the housing crisis and housing shortage, it may be that not all high streets can survive and that we need to do something innovative with them.
On a humorous note, my hon. Friend mentioned that we met in 1997 in the Eight Bells pub on Chipping Campden high street. For 21 years he laboured under the impression that I was trying to chat him up, and I had to disabuse him of that notion only recently.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I had better not comment on that publicly for fear it might lead me down the wrong business rates avenue.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My hon. Friend has spoken about the high street and perhaps, in some respects, the high street may need to change from being entirely retail to a place where people can meet and be entertained. One issue limiting such change is that many small business premises on our high streets are owned by self-invested personal pension schemes. As such, they need to remain commercial property to remain in those pension schemes. Will my hon. Friend or the Minister comment on whether properties that change from commercial to residential, in line with a slightly shrinking high street, may be able to stay within those pension schemes for a period so that such change is not hampered by the SIPP rules?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am sure it has been heard by the Minister. I am being urged to hurry up as I have taken an awfully long time, so I will not take too many more interventions.
The rates on Amazon’s nine distribution centres have fallen by an average of 1.3% and ASOS has seen its bill fall by 0.8% because, although Amazon owns 20 million square feet of warehousing from which to supply customers, it does not have to occupy premium premises on the high street to get the footfall that a high street retailer needs. This provides those large businesses with an automatic advantage, making it easier for them to slash prices while maintaining a profitable margin. I have already demonstrated how they pay much lower business rates per square foot.
Although the Government have introduced a diverted profits tax and a new digital services tax, which will raise £400 million, I do not believe some of these very large digital platforms are actually paying the just amount of tax on their turnover in this country that a British business would pay.
I have previously mentioned that the British Independent Retailers Association has long advocated changing the current threshold or discretionary relief to an allowance—the difference being that one is discretionary and an allowance is automatic—which would cut red tape for both local and national Government. It could be applied at source, as opposed to being dependent on the local council, reducing the need for the £3.7 billion spend on mandatory and discretionary allowances and reducing the Government’s current compliance cost for processing small business rate relief claims. I have already explained the difficulties with different councils applying different criteria.
Paradoxically, unknown to me at the time of my debate on 8 October 2018, the Minister had answered my written question, 176219, the day before, in which he said:
“The Government is committed to considering the feasibility of replacing small business rate relief with a business rates allowance”.
So the Government had actually conceded the point for small businesses, once the local authority and HMRC systems are linked in line with our planned digitisation of business rates. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary updated the House on where we have got on the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I want to make a little more progress.
The Government want to make tax digital, citing that they will be
“transforming tax administration so that it is more effective, more efficient”.
Would it not be worth investigating how tax could become truly joined up by ensuring that an allowance would be applied automatically, maybe at the point at which the Valuation Office Agency makes a valuation of a property? If it comes up to £51,000, that would automatically trigger the allowance that a business would be able to get, and it would simply be deducted from its bill. What a great simplification of government that would be.
There is a precedent for this, of course. Income tax has a personal allowance for all but the top 5% of earners, and that is automated. I am advocating the same principle for rates. I believe that this policy could get cross-party support. After all, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report, “High streets and town centres in 2030”, recommended
“that the complexity surrounding rate reliefs and the administrative burden they create for retailers should be addressed”
and simplified. All this needs is joined-up thinking and a plan of action to allow the Treasury to adapt the current operational systems for the benefit of businesses up and down the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak about this important subject at length. I hope that, as a result of my speech, we will see some action from the Government to ensure that business rates are reformed.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
We have had a very good debate on the extremely important matter of business rates. I will reiterate right at the start that this Government want to see taxes as low as possible. We have made a number of advances in that respect, as the House will know, in areas such as income tax and corporation tax. Equally, we want the burden of rates on businesses up and down the country to be as low as possible. For that reason, as several right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted, we doubled the small business rates relief, from £6,000 to £12,000 as a rateable value threshold, taking 655,000 businesses out of business rates altogether.
We also switched from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index for the uprating of the multiplier, further reducing the burden by £5 billion over the next five years. In 2016 we introduced £300 million for hard cases, which is there for local authorities to use at their discretion. We doubled the level of rural rate relief, from 50% to 100%, to help small communities where perhaps there is just one pub, post office or petrol station. A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned the discount of one third brought in at the last Budget.
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate. He asked a number of sensible and relevant questions about the whole way we structure our business rates. He asked specifically about the allowance, which we have discussed previously. We are looking at that seriously, but it depends to a large degree on our getting in place the digital arrangements between local authorities so that we can transfer information on business premises owned by the same entity. That programme will be introduced by about 2024, but I am happy to have further discussions with him on the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I truncated the last bit of my speech, but I was going to say that the existing IT platform is regarded by the professionals who have to work with it as being clunky and difficult to work. Does the re-design by 2024 that my right hon. Friend mentioned include an entirely new programme?
Mel Stride
I will have to come back to my hon. Friend with an answer to that specific technical question, but I will gladly do so.
Several Members rightly mentioned our high streets package. My right hon. Friend for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made reference to the fact that it is not all about business rates; it is also about how we design and evolve our high streets to face the changing nature of retailing, which of course includes the rapid advance of online retailing.
Several Members mentioned the digital service tax that we are committed to bringing in by 2020, and we will do so unilaterally in the absence of a multilateral move on the behalf of other countries.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this excellent debate. All these welcome measures that the Government introduce do not really address the fundamental flaw in this tax. Take the economically unlucky town of Harwich, which I represent. A capable family business in Harwich has developed the Pier hotel over the years to make it a real jewel in the crown of an otherwise rather economically depressed town, but what is that family’s reward? They get clobbered for extra business rates. The less successful hotel businesses carry on paying less rates but the most successful hotel and restaurant gets clobbered for a big increase in rates. If the tax operates in that way, how can that be rewarding success in depressed economic areas?
Mel Stride
Earlier in my speech, I went through at length the large number of reliefs that we have brought in to make sure that across the piece we are bearing down wherever we can, particularly in respect of those smaller businesses that might find expenses of this kind particularly arduous. Given that we have had a rather lengthy debate preceding my remarks—
Mel Stride
I will not give way at this moment.
We have listened carefully as a Government and will continue to bear down on business rates. I look forward to having further discussions about that with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and welcome the full and comprehensive debate we have had.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. May I pass on the apologies of the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth? She would dearly have loved to be here to present the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 February. Unfortunately, however, she is detained in Cabinet, so I am standing in for her as a fellow Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
The capacity market is a key element of the Government’s strategy for maintaining the security of electricity supplies in Great Britain. The security of our current electricity supply is robust; the electricity margin for winter 2018-19 is forecast to be more than 11%, the highest figure for five years, which shows that the capacity market works. The draft regulations will help us to maintain a strong security-of-supply position. They contain the modifications needed for the operation of the capacity market, pending fresh state aid approval by the European Commission, and make arrangements for a positive or negative state aid decision. These are not wholesale changes, but minor modifications to preserve the operation of the scheme to the extent possible while state aid approval is outstanding.
Before I go into detail, it may be helpful if I provide some context and background information. The capacity market ensures that there will be sufficient electricity supply in Great Britain during periods of peak electricity demand. It secures the required capacity by awarding capacity agreements in competitive, technology-neutral auctions held four years and one year ahead of delivery. The capacity providers that win agreements commit to providing capacity during periods of system stress in exchange for receiving capacity payments, the revenue from which incentivises the investment necessary to maintain and refurbish existing capacity and finance new capacity; it also ensures that those who are able to shift demand away from periods of greater scarcity are encouraged to do so.
On 15 November 2018, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled the European Commission’s state aid approval for Great Britain’s capacity market and introduced a standstill period until the scheme can be reapproved. Importantly, its judgment was based on the procedure that the Commission followed when approving the capacity market, not on the capacity market itself. The judgment prevents the UK Government from making capacity payments unless and until the scheme receives state aid approval, but it does not change the Government’s commitment to delivering secure electricity supplies at the lowest cost to consumers or our belief that capacity market auctions remain the most appropriate way of doing so.
The Commission is investigating the scheme. On 21 February, it confirmed that it was moving on to the next phase—an important step as we work to reinstate state aid approval in the capacity market as soon as possible. We are working with the Commission to ensure that it has everything necessary to reapprove the scheme as quickly as possible, and we are confident that it will be approved and that payments to agreement holders who have met their obligations during the standstill period will be allowed.
My Department published a consultation proposing modifications to allow the capacity market to operate as far as possible during the standstill period following the General Court’s decision. We received 61 responses from a wide range of stakeholders. There was significant support for the majority of the proposals, with constructive feedback that led to several changes. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also highlighted uncertainties associated with the state aid process. We are confident that the draft regulations will help to address those uncertainties, including the unlikely event of a negative state aid decision.
Let me expand on the provisions in the draft regulations, beginning with deferred payments. To maintain industry confidence, the regulations include modifications to ensure that capacity payments that are currently being prevented by the Court’s judgment can be paid to capacity providers after state aid approval is obtained. Those payments will remain linked to capacity providers’ performance of the obligations in their capacity agreements.
Secondly, in recognition of the disruption caused to capacity providers, the draft regulations will provide additional flexibility during the standstill period. Capacity providers will have to pay financial penalties incurred during the standstill period only on the scheme’s state aid approval. In most cases, the same will apply to the requirement to maintain credit cover. The instrument extends from six to 12 months the additional time existing agreement holders can request for taking steps to avoid termination. In exceptional circumstances, where the suspension of capacity payments means imposing a termination fee that would cause a capacity provider undue financial hardship, the Secretary of State may direct the delivery body to terminate the agreement without such a fee.
Moving on from terminations and penalties, the instrument sets out the conditions for rearranging the T-1 auction that was originally planned for earlier this year, securing the capacity required for winter 2019-20. The auction will award conditional capacity agreements, which will not entitle capacity providers to payments or require them to pay penalties or termination fees until they convert to full capacity agreements upon state aid approval, thus allowing the auction to be run before there is that approval. The instrument also allows the settlement body to hold payments made by suppliers to fund the scheme, where suppliers choose to pay during the standstill period. It also enables the collection of all outstanding supplier charges for the standstill period upon state aid approval, providing certainty that upon that approval capacity payments will be made promptly.
Finally, in the unlikely event of a negative state aid decision, or no decision by October 2020, the instrument will terminate capacity agreements and any entitlement to receive capacity payments, and will require similar payments held by the settlement body to be returned. Although we are confident that a state aid decision will be made by October 2020, we have included that long stop to ensure that supplier payments are not held indefinitely without the prospect of payments being made to capacity providers for performance against their obligations. We have also laid complementary amendments to the capacity market rules, which govern the technical and administrative procedures relating to capacity market operation.
In conclusion, the draft regulations are necessary to provide legal certainty and confidence to the industry about how the capacity market will operate until state aid approval is received, and I commend them to the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The Opposition really do not want to vote against the draft regulations, because we consider some form of administrative procedure necessary to sort out the chaos with capacity market payments. As the Minister indicated, capacity payments cannot be collected and capacity money cannot be awarded to organisations with contracts arising from capacity auctions, because the capacity market itself has effectively been nullified by the European Court of Justice judgment. Companies, therefore, do not know what will happen. Indeed, companies that might otherwise have been liable for payments may well not be putting money into a pot for payments—or even into their own pot for payments—and may be doing other things with that money. Companies that had planned to undertake activity—investments, possibly—as a result of obtaining capacity market money for arrangements they had come about in good faith as a result of capacity market auctions, are not in a position to get that money on to their balance sheets and undertake that activity.
We have a difficult situation concerning how the capacity market affects those who pay into the fund for capacity market auction agreements and those who get money out of it. We accept that something needs to be done to stabilise that chaotic situation, but whether the proposals before us do that job properly is another question. Whether the proposals address themselves to the full gravity of the ECJ judgment and whether they are a rather simplistic response to it, regarding what needs to be done, are other issues to be considered. I want to concentrate on the two latter issues briefly this afternoon, because they are germane to how the procedure of stabilising the payments and outputs from the current capacity market can be progressed, and what that capacity market will look like when the payments and rewards are restored.
In order to concentrate on those two points, like the Minister, I will briefly refer back to the circumstances under which we reached our present chaotic state of affairs. The capacity market, which was formed in 2014, was originally intended to be a market to procure underwriting for long-term investment in plant capacity. The assumption at that time was that those arrangements would normally be for 15 years. Plant such as new combined cycle gas plant would be underwritten for investment purposes by the capacity market, which would create better and more stable long-term capacity into the market.
As the Minister said, that is not an issue right now, because we have an 11% capacity margin in the capacity market. It is unlikely that there will be any capacity problems over the winter. However, as the Minister will also know, with the recent cancellation of nuclear plant programmes, and a number of other issues, there may well be a much longer-term capacity problem as far as that percentage difference is concerned, but not necessarily this winter or next.
A capacity market which did that 15-year job of bringing long-term capacity into the frame might make some long-term sense. The problem with the capacity market as it stands is that it has signally failed to do that job. Instead, almost all the contracts are one-year contracts for immediate capacity for companies not to produce, but to stand by to produce, if required, in the event of a capacity shortfall in a particular period, in this case, next winter.
That is a very long way from the original intention of the capacity market. Not only are contracts being given out to coal-fired generators, which increases the amount of energy they produce when they are supposed to be reducing it until their disappearance in 2025, but capacity payments are being given to old nuclear power producers in order for them to stand by and produce power when, in fact, a nuclear power station cannot be turned off. It is therefore quite impossible for that nuclear power station not to provide power and yet capacity payments are going to those organisations. It is not a good system as it stands.
That may have had a bearing on the ECJ judgment when it had before it a case that the Commission had not given proper consideration to the question of state aid acceptability of the original capacity market proposal. As hon. Members know, when a proposal that is known to be state aid comes before the Commission, it will consider whether there are circumstances which would give a wayleave to that state aid consideration. In this instance, that wayleave was given, on the grounds that the capacity market would do various things relating to the UK’s ability to deal with any capacity gaps—indeed, on the basis that I described a little while ago.
The case before the ECJ stated that, not only had the Commission not considered properly that state aid case—indeed, the Commission quite palpably relied on UK submissions and did not do a separate investigation into state aid before pronouncing that state aid was okay as far as the capacity market was concerned—it did not consider concerns about the accessibility of the capacity market to newer forms of energy, such as demand-side management. Because of the construction of the capacity market, demand-side management was particularly disadvantaged in terms of access and therefore was being discriminated against in how it was able to get capacity payments in the way that might have been intended, compared with more traditional forms of energy production.
What particularly concerns me is that the whole basis of the proposal in this draft regulation is that the judgment by the ECJ to annul the capacity market as it stands is merely a procedural issue. The explanatory memorandum states that the
“Court of Justice of the European Union…annulled the State aid approval for the scheme on procedural grounds concerning the European Commission’s procedure for investigating the UK’s notified scheme.”
That is palpably not so. The ECJ judgment did not simply decide on procedural grounds that it would annul capacity market payments for the time being. If it was concluded that the ECJ had simply decided on procedural grounds to annul the payments, one might expect—as, indeed, this document does—that within a short time the Commission would set right its procedure and put right the capacity market payments as they previously stood—and all would be well.
Essentially, that is what this statutory instrument assumes: that the capacity market is at present annulled and there should be various arrangements to secure payments in and hold payments out. As the Minister said, there is a cut-off date in 2020, whereby if a decision has not been reached about capacity payments, those payments will become null and void. The Government clearly consider that holding a contingent auction in autumn this year is perfectly okay, because fairly soon afterwards payments will come forward and the auction payments will be able to be paid up.
I am not sure whether those are sound propositions on which to base the whole of this statutory instrument. The Government are not only setting a long-stop about decision-making, but stating in the explanatory memorandum that they expect a decision to be received ahead of the 2019-20 delivery year, on 1 October 2019. That is the reason why the statutory instrument proposes that a delayed T-1 auction be held: on the basis that there will be a very short period while money must be held before money can be released as a result of that auction.
I am not sure that that is correct, however, because the judgment did not just refer to procedural issues; it also raised serious doubts about differences in treatment and about the compatibility of the measure on non-discrimination grounds with respect to demand-side response. Those issues should have merited opening a formal investigation procedure. Because the Commission did not carry one out, not only was its procedure not correct, but it had not correctly applied itself in matters of substance relating to the capacity market.
Consequently, the ECJ ruling nullified the capacity market, essentially on two grounds: first, that the Commission had not satisfactorily carried out its own procedures, but secondly because of the real concerns that I have outlined about the structure of the capacity market with respect to access for demand-side response and other modern energy arrangements. Those concerns could have given rise to further concerns about state aid that were not considered.
The draft regulations try to bring some order to the current chaos, but they do so on the basis of some frankly fairly wobbly assumptions about what the judgment was about, how long it is likely to be in the hands of the Commission for further determination, and what the Commission is likely to decide on the capacity market question.
If the Commission comes out with a judgment that reflects some of the more complex matters, it is distinctly possible that it will state that the capacity market has never been lawful and that all the money paid out in the eight capacity auctions that have taken place so far should be recovered one way or another. That could come to many billions of pounds. On receipt of such a judgment, it would be necessary to undertake such a procedure and—if it was felt that a capacity market was required—to start the process completely anew with a fresh application for state aid, on the basis that the previous arrangements were all completely unlawful.
It might therefore be more prudent to declare that the arrangements that have hitherto been undertaken were historical; that the capacity market for those circumstances has come to an end; and that, rather than having an interim auction to join the new capacity market with the old one, we should put a new capacity market in place when a judgment comes out. That, at least, would probably protect the UK Government from having to try to recover some £8 billion or £9 billion in payments from capacity auctions since 2014.
I apologise that I have had to go on at some length, but I hope it is clear that the Opposition have severe concerns about the substance, rather than the procedure, of the draft regulations. We do not oppose them on procedural grounds, but we would like to see a much better analysis of what the Commission might come out with, following the ECJ judgment, and of what the UK Government’s options would be.
The best thing to do is to ask this Minister, who is ably filling in for the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, to facilitate a meeting between me and the Minister of State so that we can go through the concerns and see whether the UK Government have anticipated them or whether other things ought to be done to ensure that, as we come out of a period of nullification, we are properly protected when it comes to what happens subsequently. At the moment, I am not sure that we are or that we have taken as seriously as we should the substance of the ECJ ruling, as well as the procedure.
My concern, obviously, is to keep the payments flowing, to bring order to the market. The opportunity that there is now for a review of the capacity market next year, which is in the statute, might be a chance to get a number of these issues sorted out as far as the capacity market in the future is concerned. If the Minister can give an undertaking that such a meeting will be facilitated and that we can look at those wider issues in the not-too-distant future, I will be most grateful. In those circumstances, I would not seek to press this SI to a vote.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test; as usual, I will be somewhat briefer and, I suspect, more superficial than he was. I, too, would appreciate it if, when he sums up, the Minister reminded us how we got to this point; whether these proposed changes are sufficient to meet the concerns with the ECJ; what the outstanding risks are; and, if the proposed T-1 auction we are preparing for does not go ahead, what the supply risks are in terms of the electricity market. Energy UK, the industry body, is in favour of these changes, so it seems that some changes are required to facilitate further capacity auctions.
Paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of the explanatory memorandum detail the additional legislative changes required to accompany this statutory instrument. Can the Minister say what other changes are required, when they are coming and why we are not seeing the whole package together?
In terms of the Government consultation, half the responses express concerns regarding the T-1 agreement trigger and the amount of power or discretion that that gives the Secretary of State. Paragraph 10.3 of the explanatory memorandum says that some changes to the proposals have been made, following the consultation. Do the proposed changes to the legislation cover the concerns that respondents had with regard to the T-1 agreement trigger?
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test touched on the fact that the UK Government need a much more coherent energy strategy. Half the existing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned in the years 2023-2024. In recent written questions, I asked the Government about the proposed plans for the replacement generation capacity for these nuclear power stations. I was told that there are no immediate plans, but that they have decades to decide that. Clearly, they do not have decades to decide, given that those stations are going offstream in five years’ time. That shows the failings of the Government’s policy in their current nuclear obsession—new nuclear is not working but they are still carrying on full steam ahead.
We need more onshore wind generation in Scotland, CCS strategy, and greater investment in marine and tidal energy. Those are all required to stabilise the power generation market going forward. I would like to hear some comments about those issues, too.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their considered contributions today. It is evident that they have spent a lot of time thinking about the policy perspectives when it comes to the capacity market.
The Government continue to believe that the capacity market is the right mechanism for delivering security of supply at the lowest cost to consumers. My Department is working closely with the European Commission to ensure that state aid approval in the capacity market can be reinstated swiftly. Meanwhile, the judgment of the General Court prevents the UK Government from making capacity payments unless and until state aid approval is obtained.
However, we do not consider that the judgment prevents other aspects of the capacity market from continuing to operate during that standstill period. The delivery body and the assessment body continue to operate aspects of the capacity market during the standstill period, facilitating ongoing compliance with the scheme and helping to limit that uncertainty following that General Court judgment, to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test referred. It also ensures capacity in a way that promotes security of electricity supply and demonstrates that a provider should be entitled to back payments. It enables the scheme to restart full operations as quickly as possible after state aid approval.
The T-1 auction, referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, will ensure that successful bidders in replacement T-1 auctions will be eligible to receive capacity payments covering the entire delivery year if state aid approval is obtained before October 2020. We believe that this enables bidders to have confidence in the revenue they can expect to receive through the auction if it is approved by the European Commission, providing better value for bill payers and reducing the risk premium that might otherwise inflate auction bids.
The Government do not consider that holding this T-1 auction, or awarding additional capacity agreements in that auction, amounts to state aid. Conditional capacity agreements convert into capacity agreements only if there is state aid approval to make payments, meaning that any aid under the agreement awarded is entirely conditional on state aid.
I turn to the judgment of the General Court. We are clear that it was based on the procedure followed by the European Commission. The General Court gave examples of where the Commission should have had doubts and investigated them, but did not rule that the design was wrong. We are confident that the design of the capacity market is now compatible with the state aid requirement. We have carefully considered each of the issues raised through the Court judgment.
We cannot pre-empt the outcome of the Commission’s investigation, but we remain confident that the scheme will be approved by the Commission following investigation —not least because it has approved six other capacity markets since 2014.
The Commission has also appealed the judgment of the General Court to the European Court of Justice. The Commission might require policy changes to the design of the capacity market scheme when granting state aid approval, in which case the Government would seek to respond swiftly to consider and bring forward the required changes. My Department has been in regular discussion with the Commission since the judgment to better understand the process they are following to ensure that we can support the investigation in the most effective and timely way possible. It is for the Commission to establish its own timetable, but we expect it to make the final decision later in the year.
I turn to the general points made on the necessity of the capacity market. The Government continue to believe that the capacity market is the right mechanism for delivering security of supply at the lowest cost to consumers. This view was supported by the majority of stakeholders that responded to our call for evidence in September 2018 as part of the proposed five-year review.
The capacity markets have a direct and indirect impact on new-build capacity. Around 4GW of new resources were cleared in the most recent 2018 T-4 auction, leading to the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun: when it comes to the transfer away from fossil fuels towards renewable and nuclear fuels, the capacity market provides a cost-effective mechanism for bringing forward new capacity as and when needed. Recent auctions have supported a wide range of new-build resources, and the capacities of the market have had an impact on new builds.
Dr Whitehead
On the particular point of the capacity market providing new build, will the Minister agree that the only combined cycle gas plant supported by the capacity market is one 400MW plant during the entire period of the auctions? The capacity that has been procured more recently has either been open cycle gas plants, which are more polluting than combined cycle gas plants, or diesel set generators, which are more polluting than coal. Does the Minister consider that that is a good method of procuring capacity for the future through the capacity market arrangements?
Chris Skidmore
I would also point to the fact that we have seen 150 MW of battery storage through the recent T-4 auction; 1.1GW of DSR and 2GW of new interconnectors. There is obviously a variation. When it comes to the capacity market, this technology is based on delivering the most cost-effective mechanism, but we have demonstrated the need to introduce new capacity as and when needed.
When it comes to the Government’s record on switching away from coal, I should say that we have invested £92 billion in clean energy and quadrupled the renewable electricity capacity since 2010: the share of electricity from low-carbon sources is now 56%. In quarter 3 of 2018, 33% was from renewables, an increase from 6.9% in 2010.
If the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth were here, I am sure she would expound on the recent offshore wind sector deal, which was published two weeks ago. We now have the ability in offshore wind to exceed 30GW of installed operational capacity—more than we expected. We have already met the 2020 renewable targets. That is the same for solar capacity: in 2013, we estimated it would reach between 10GW and 12GW by 2020. The latest figures indicate it has reached 30GW, enough to power more than 3 million homes.
Important progress has been made. In terms of the five-year review of the capacity market that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in line with the requirements set out in the Energy Act, we intend to publish a report that summarises our five-year review of electricity market reform this summer. One chapter of that will cover the five-year review of the capacity market.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about meeting the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, I should say that she will be delighted to discuss the opportunities for reform of the capacity market and to look at how we can deliver the best capacity market in the future.
When we look at the issue of agreements, the hon. Gentleman is right that the majority of capacity types can only access one-year agreements. An exception is obviously made for new and refurbished plants because investors require more certainty when investing in large capital projects; those agreements are for up to four years. However, we believe that longer-term agreements, where not needed, risk needlessly locking consumers into paying a long-term price, while there are challenges to encouraging business to engage in demand-side response. The same capital costs do not apply there. No clear evidence suggests that longer-term agreements are necessary to ensure demand-side response can compete effectively.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Opposition Members have referred to the long-term problem with capacity, particularly with the nuclear baseload coming off-stream in the late 2020s and coal stopping between 2023 and 2025. At the same time, the Government are quite rightly encouraging increased uptake of electric vehicles—I declare an interest in that I drive one myself. This will place great demands on the grid and generation capacity. What plans do the Government have to make sure that the increased demand will be met by increased supply and to replace the energy that is coming offline?
Chris Skidmore
The question here is one of short-term capacity. We mentioned earlier that the electricity margin is 11%, which the highest it has been for the past five years. However, we cannot be complacent about ensuring that we have that insurance mechanism in place. That is why the capacity market is so important.
I point to the importance of investing in future technologies, while, side-by-side, we look at existing technologies and ensure that the capacity market adopts those providers. We have the Faraday battery challenge, which is quite close to where the hon. Gentleman is in the Midlands—that is £280 million worth of investment. When it comes to the supply of electricity, making sure that we have efficiency within a system, particularly with electric vehicles, is a key part of our grand challenge for Motability, particularly in cities. Work is being done to ensure that we can deliver on the power supply for that upscaling in electric vehicle manufacture and uptake, and I am struck by that work.
I am equally passionate about future technologies that we will need to invest in. We talked about nuclear fission, but we need to continue to work towards nuclear fusion with our European partners. The European Commission recently allowed a £100 million extension of the Joint European Torus contract at Culham. Going forwards, we are keen to associate with ITER, the international thermonuclear experimental reactor in France.
The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is right. We need to ensure that we have a portfolio of energy supplies as we reduce our dependence, as we have done successfully on fossil fuels and gas, but we can and will do more. It is important to recognise that this country has the most successful record when it comes to the introduction of renewables as a percentage of the overall grid supply.
We appreciate that the Court’s judgment has created the uncertainty and the potential difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Commission is investigating the scheme and has confirmed that it is moving on to the next phase. That is an important step as we work to reinstate state aid approval for the capacity market as soon as possible. The regulations provide legal certainty and confidence to industry and the electricity system about how the capacity market will operate during that standstill period pending state aid approval and about what we expect after that period. We continue to believe that the capacity market is the right mechanism for delivering security of supply at the lowest cost. The regulations are essential to preserving the operation of the capacity market to the extent that is possible when state aid approval is outstanding. The regulations provide vital confidence to industry and safeguard a secure system.
We have had an important and detailed debate about some of the wider policy implications. I have set out an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to have a meeting with the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth. The regulations prescribe for the immediate future of the capacity market. That is important, and I urge all Members to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019.
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
Further Education Funding
(5 years, 8 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
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered further education funding.
Good morning, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see colleagues from across the House come together to debate further education colleges. I do so with my co-conspirator, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin)—165 colleagues signed our recent letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a fantastic opportunity for hon. Members from all parties to come together without the need for indicative motions on alternatives and to reach a rare and much-cherished cross-party consensus on four simple propositions.
The first proposition is that further education is incredibly important to all of us, in every constituency in the land. The second is that our colleges need more funding to achieve important goals. The third is that the spending review and Budget are a great opportunity to make giant steps towards that objective. Lastly, today is an opportunity for many people to give a clear message to the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, who has been very supportive throughout, and to the wider Government: please do more to help our colleges provide the skills our young people need for themselves and for our country.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Well done to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Peter Symonds College in Winchester is the largest in England. It has grown significantly in recent years. Student numbers grew by 19% between 2011 and 2018, yet in the same period the college’s overall funding grew by just 3%—the relevant factors are the rising cost base, changes to pension contributions, national insurance and the part-funded pay rise—meaning that, without a long-overdue increase in the base rate, it will have to make some very difficult and significant changes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the comprehensive spending review is looking increasingly like a seminal moment for this sector?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) answers, may I put a marker down? An enormous number of Members wish to take part in the debate. I am going to insist that interventions be brief.
Richard Graham
The short answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is yes.
Today, I want to set out briefly what the problem is—as you say, Sir Roger, many Members wish to speak—what the case for further education colleges is in more detail, what outcomes we would like to see from more funding going into the sector, what skills and productivity we should be looking for, and some of the key statistics, both locally and nationally, that are on our minds.
Let me start by outlining the problem. It is simply that education for 16 to 18-year-olds has, broadly speaking, not been funded as well as that for other age groups. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has done research that shows that. The chart we used in our letter shows clearly that, of the four main categories of education—primary, secondary, further and higher—further education is the only one on which spending has fallen in real terms recently. It is therefore the most deserving of the four categories, but let it also be said—
Richard Graham
I will give way in a second; let me just finish the sentence. I suspect that all of us here share the view that education in general is a good cause for the spending review and the Budget, so this is not to decry the other three categories but to highlight the importance of more funding for further education. Three colleagues wished to intervene—I think they were, in order, an hon. Friend and then two Opposition colleagues.
John Howell
I will be as brief as I can. Does my hon. Friend not think that FE colleges have the ability to improve the situation themselves by attracting good companies in to help fund apprenticeships? That is precisely what I am doing with the FE college in my constituency.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is always a great champion of these things, and he is absolutely right. Colleges can certainly help themselves by attracting great employers to offer apprenticeships, and we can help them by introducing some of the employers if need be.
Melanie Onn
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the restrictions on FE funding have directly damaged the ability of colleges to recruit very specialist skills at the highest level, such as in engineering, meaning that vacancies exist for long periods and that colleges are often cutting short those types of course?
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady has brilliantly anticipated a line in my speech, and I agree with her.
Mr Bailey
Notwithstanding the Treasury’s historical aversion to hypothecated taxation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given that the Government are making a substantial surplus out of the apprenticeship levy at the moment, there is a strong moral case for recycling that money into the 16-to-18 sector?
Richard Graham
Hypothecated funds are interesting. I am an advocate of them for the field of care. I will leave my right hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the huge surplus being generated; I have not yet seen much sign of that surplus coming through in my constituency, but the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The point about recruitment and retention has been raised. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sector desperately needs more funding? In a case I am aware of, there are staff who have not had a pay rise for 10 years. If that is the case, retention will become impossible.
Richard Graham
Yes. When it comes to pay rises, all of us will remember that take-home pay has increased by about £1,200 as a result of the tax-free allowance being almost doubled, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right on the wider point about being able to retain key staff. That point has been raised by other colleagues and is crucial.
Alex Chalk
Does my hon. Friend agree that FE is at its most successful when it is provided locally, in communities? Gloscol—Gloucestershire College—provides services in both Cheltenham and my hon. Friend’s constituency of Gloucester, but if the cuts increase, it will be at only one or other of those sites, and that will reduce the uptake of courses and damage FE provision in the county overall. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Richard Graham
Where my hon. Friend and constituency near-neighbour is absolutely right is that, in the case of Gloucestershire College, which provides those skills in Cheltenham, Gloucester and the Forest of Dean, there is only one provider, in effect, in the whole county. That is why further education colleges are crucial to the infrastructure of all our constituencies. I agree totally with that.
Richard Graham
I must give way to Truro, and then I will give way to Ludlow.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I commend him for securing the debate. There could not be a greater champion for this sector than our right hon. Friend the Minister. Our job is to give her strength to go forward to the Treasury to secure the funding, and it is great that so many of us will be on the record giving her that strength. On the point about more funding to secure better wages, Truro and Penwith College is outstanding and deemed to be so by Ofsted, yet it has not been able to give its staff a pay rise for eight years, which of course is making it difficult for the college to recruit and retain staff.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we can all agree that it is time that core funding allowed for a decent increase in salaries for staff.
Richard Graham
I must give way to Ludlow, and then I will give way to York.
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend is exhibiting, if I may say so, an almost ministerial skill in handling interventions today. He was touching on geography. The FE college in my constituency is the only location for sixth-form and technical training within a 20-mile radius. Does he agree that if pressure is placed on isolated, rural FE colleges, we may well find ourselves in a situation in which no such provision is available in parts of the country, which would not be acceptable?
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The crucial point, as he implies, is that, in effect, his local college, like so many of our colleges, has a monopoly. If things were to go badly wrong, who else would provide what it does? Who would provide those opportunities for young people? My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) was reaching for an intervention.
Julian Sturdy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is right to highlight the importance of wider education funding, which has seen increases. However, York College, in my constituency, tells me that the big problem it faces is that while school sixth forms can cross-subsidise, colleges cannot. Does he feel that that issue affects all colleges?
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a significant issue, as is the issue of A-levels for those who went to schools without a sixth form, for whom further education is really important. I know that my co-conspirator, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, will come on to that point.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My hon. Friend deserves huge praise for bringing this debate to the House. The Minister also deserves huge praise, and I know she is listening and believes a great deal of what we are saying. In Taunton we have an outstanding sixth-form college, Richard Huish College, and an excellent university centre. However, those institutions tell me that, by 2021, they need at least £760 more per student to deliver the apprenticeship scheme, which delivers for business. Does he agree that we want to retain those students locally, because they have the skills we need for the future, and to deliver minority subjects, such as languages?
Richard Graham
I absolutely agree. The Minister, who is a former apprentice herself, is a huge champion for that, along with colleagues from across the House.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Related to the suppression of pay in the sector is a casualisation of contracts, which are being put out to subsidiary businesses within college groups, and that has an impact on the morale and pay of staff. Next Monday and Tuesday there will be strikes at Warwickshire College Group in my area. That is not what students need, and the sector does not need it either.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. He is absolutely right that that is not what students need, and I am not sure that it is what colleges really need at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will touch on that.
We are looking for more funding, which is needed to ensure that good staff are hired and retained. Unused space needs to be used. Interestingly, around a third of the space in the nation’s further education colleges is currently unused, so there is a capacity opportunity, which could provide more space for more students to get those key skills.
We need more quality apprentices to be hired and trained. We all have stories from our respective constituencies about the importance of that. Colleges can make a huge difference in terms of the life opportunities apprenticeships offer. The key output from that will be a leap in business productivity, which we know is one of our country’s big, outstanding challenges.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as funding for students, colleges face challenges with apprenticeships and, in particular, with the new non-levy apprenticeship scheme, of which the Minister is well aware? In my area, the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group has no funding for 18-plus, non-levy adult apprenticeships, and only enough funding until the end of September for 16 to 18-year-olds.
Richard Graham
The apprenticeship levy is an issue in itself, which I do not intend to address today, because it is slightly peripheral to what we can achieve in an hour and a half on the overall situation for further education colleges. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are ongoing issues, which I know the skills Minister is doing her best to tackle, and I am grateful to him for raising them.
More funding can achieve results in a couple of slightly softer areas, which are worth mentioning. The challenge around mental health is not unique to further education but exists across the education sector. There is no doubt about it: young students in general are facing more challenges than in the past. Funding to ensure that they get the support they need while at college is incredibly important and should increase their resilience and contribute to better results and opportunities. It is worth adding that to the checklist of things that could be achieved through more funding.
Richard Graham
Lastly, at the soft end of what could be done, there is a range of enrichment activities, particularly for students aged 16 to 18, where colleges have opportunities to demonstrate that they can compete with other, better funded institutions.
Before I turn to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who is from the engineering sector and a great advocate for it, I will just touch on a few general facts, which it is useful for us to bear in mind. There are 266 colleges in England—almost one college for every two constituencies. They educate the majority of 16 to 18-year-olds and 2.2 million other young people and adults. On average, there are 1,200 apprenticeships in every further education college. Students who are over 19 generate an additional £70 billion for the economy over their lifetime.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Richard Graham
I will just make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and then the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss).
The average pay for a college teacher—a number of colleagues have mentioned salaries as an issue—is £30,000, compared to £37,000 for a school teacher. I find that a particularly interesting statistic because it implies that we put a lower value on further education teachers than school teachers, which cannot be right. It is also worth highlighting that in 2017 alone the turnover rate in further education was 17%—almost one in five—which is higher than the rate in schools. As a result of funding issues, 63% of colleges have been making compulsory redundancies. If this was a business, we would have to assume that it was in decline. I think we would all say that it is time that we halted and reversed that process.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the devastating impact that lack of funding for further education is having, particularly on young people. Colleges such as Newcastle College in my constituency are doing great work in really difficult circumstances. Does he agree that adult education and lifelong learning, such as that delivered by the Workers’ Educational Association in hard-to-reach communities in Newcastle—which has also been severely cut and is likely to be cut more in the future—provides the kind of opportunities that we need, particularly for productivity in the fourth industrial revolution, as jobs change in the future?
Richard Graham
The short answer is that I agree. Qualifications for workers in key sectors have dropped. Qualifications for construction workers have dropped from 98,000 to 62,000. For engineers, the sector from which the hon. Lady comes, including plumbers and electricians, the figure has dropped from 145,000 to 46,000. That is a huge drop in a relatively short space of time, precisely at the moment when we need more engineers in this country, to take forward our technology revolution.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
My hon. Friend highlights precisely the relevant point, namely that at the very moment when we should be looking at vocational skills in our economy, we are squeezing funding in that area. This is critical to where our country is heading in the next 10 to 20 years.
Richard Graham
I do apologise—I will come to the hon. Lady in one second. Some statistics, which the Minister is well aware of, suggest that on a national basis we are in the bottom quartile for the numbers of higher apprenticeships, which are the ones that include the greatest numbers of skills and will drive forward our technology businesses. At the same time—the hon. Member for Scunthorpe may touch on this—it is worth remembering that the entry qualifications, levels 2 and 3, play a very important role in getting some of our youngest and least-skilled constituents on to the ladder of opportunity, so we need support at both ends.
Gill Furniss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I applaud the work of Sheffield College in my constituency during these difficult times. Does he agree that we are taking away a vital support system for many in our working-class communities, and that we will rob them of vital opportunities for the future, unless we change now, and start giving further education colleges the support that they need and individuals the community support that they need to realise their potential?
Richard Graham
I agree with the hon. Lady’s general point that it is incredibly important to give our young people maximum opportunities. Everyone has highlighted the role of further education colleges in that.
Richard Graham
I will make a tiny bit of progress. I am conscious that a lot of hon. Members want to speak, so I will try to reach the end of my comments and bring the hon. Lady in before I finish.
It would be wrong of me not to mention the importance of Gloucestershire College—Gloscol—in my county of Gloucestershire, which I have known well for the last decade. The management have done their best to try to use resources to maximum effect and give our young people the opportunities that we are looking at across the country. Its 1,000 full and part-time staff serve some 3,500 students across the three campuses in Gloucester, Cheltenham and the Forest of Dean. It is clear, however, that even such a college, which has been rated good for the last three and a half years, is struggling to maintain the range of qualifications that my colleagues in Gloucestershire and I want it to provide.
I will not touch on South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, because the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) will want to, but I suspect that he will mention some similar issues. I also pay tribute to my fellow campaigner in Stroud, Siobhan Baillie, who has visited the college twice recently and has highlighted some of the issues that it faces, including—as is true for all colleges—the teachers’ pension increases that cost it £1 million a year. I hope that the Minister will comment on those pension costs, which are a real issue for many colleges across the country; she has spoken about them before.
Karen Lee
I have one brief sentence. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about young people, but colleges support older people and people of all ages as well. I left a grammar school with two O-levels, then went to college, got my A-levels and trained as a nurse—aged 39. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, as shown by the warmth of approval purring through the Chamber. She is a fantastic example of what a further education college can achieve; perhaps we should have a colleges alumni group in Parliament.
Some of the comments that the Association of Colleges and other royal societies have fed in to me confirm the general picture that I and other hon. Members have painted so far, which is that we need more funding for teachers’ pay; more help to ensure that the range of subjects continues to increase rather than decrease; and more young people to get decent results in English and maths at A-level. We also need to tackle the shortage in science, technology, engineering and maths skills, which are vital for our country’s future, as several hon. Members have mentioned.
I will finish by alluding to a remarkable bundle of statistics. There are 171,000 16 to 18-year-olds doing A-levels in further education colleges—a huge army of young people who deserve to be taught well and given the resources they need—and 672,000 students taking STEM subjects in colleges, who also deserve the best teachers available from a sector where salaries are getting higher all the time.
For all the reasons mentioned, I hope that the debate encourages the skills Minister on her chosen path, which is to be the champion of further education colleges. I also hope it will ensure that, in this spending review and Budget, further education colleges finally get the increase in funding that they deserve, so that they can ultimately improve opportunities and productivity, and be the success that we all want them to be in our constituencies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate. I could impose a time limit of two minutes, but I do not think that is realistic, so I will impose a time limit of three minutes. Please bear in mind that each intervention adds a minute, so it is entirely up to hon. Members whether they allow other hon. Members the chance to speak at the end of the debate. I urge hon. Members to be as courteous and forbearing as they can.
Exceptionally, to facilitate the debate, I will give the batting order now. Those at the end may choose to intervene, on the almost-certain understanding that they will not get called, because I suspect that the time limit I am imposing will not be realistic—I appreciate that I am taking time myself. From the Opposition Benches, I shall call Daniel Zeichner, Paul Blomfield, Emma Reynolds, Liz McInnes, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Luke Pollard, Jim Shannon, Marsha De Cordova, Derek Twigg, Dr David Drew, Rachael Maskell, Holly Lynch, Karen Lee, Gill Furniss, and—first, as one of the co-sponsors of the debate—Nic Dakin. From the Government Benches, I shall call Andrew Selous, Will Quince, Sir David Evennett, Giles Watling, Martin Vickers, Peter Aldous, Andrew Lewer and Derek Thomas.
I am afraid that those who are attending the debate who are not on that list and have not put in to speak will not stand a chance of getting called. I hope that is helpful. Moving swiftly forward, I call Nic Dakin.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Roger; I shall rattle through my speech. I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for clearly setting out the case for colleges, which is echoed by the big number of hon. Members attending the debate. I hope that the Government are listening.
Colleges provide a bridge between education and the world of work, help industry to find solutions, and secure real work contexts and experiences for students. In small towns such as Scunthorpe, they are significant engines of enterprise and social mobility. North Lindsey College is showing great leadership by opening its new university centre as part of the drive to build higher level skills locally. John Leggott College celebrates 50 years of Ofsted recognising its pastoral support as outstanding.
Success does not guarantee future success, however. North Lindsey embraced the Government’s apprenticeship agenda and achieved growth of more than 30% against a backdrop of a national decline in starts. However, due to problems with the levy, non-levy-paying companies may not be able to provide apprenticeships for young people, which might be restricted as caps take effect. I would appreciate it if the Minister commented on that.
There has been a 22% decline in core funding since 2010-11. The average funding per student for 16 to 18-year-olds is 15% lower than for 11 to 16-year-olds and about half the average university tuition fee. Some 51% of colleges and schools have dropped courses in modern foreign languages; 38% have dropped STEM courses; 78% have reduced student support services; and 81% are teaching students in larger classes.
It is high time to raise the core rate, which has remained frozen at £4,000 per student per year since 2013-14. Recent research by London Economics found that £760 per student was the minimum amount of additional funding required so that there can be student support services where they are needed, protection for minority subjects and an increase in time for students. Raising the rate would benefit 1.1 million young people and the economy. The decline needs to be reversed now. Stabilising the core element of college funding would be a clear commitment to not only 16 to 18-year-olds, but colleges and their pivotal role in communities.
More than ever, as we contemplate life outside the EU, 16 to 18-year-olds are our future—this country’s future—and they deserve to be backed by all of us across this House and by our Government. It is high time to raise the roof, shout out for our young people’s future and raise the rate—that means the proper rate, not bits and bobs around T-levels, a larger programme uplift and maths levels. Those things are valuable and useful, but raising the rate is about the core funding that will make a core difference by transforming the lives of 16 to 18-year-olds and transforming the country.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am very proud to have Central Bedfordshire College in my constituency. It is a multi-campus college, with sites in Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and Houghton Regis, which are three of my towns. Of course, having a multi-campus college means that there are additional expenses.
For me, this issue is one of fairness. Every stage of education is important; none of us in Westminster Hall today has come here to do down our schools or the excellent work that universities do. We all want schools and universities to be well funded. However, the way that colleges have been treated in comparison with schools and universities is simply not fair.
How can it be acceptable that college teachers are paid on average less than 80% of the rate of school staff? We know that we have critical shortages of college teachers in engineering, maths and other critical subjects. We also know that the recent pay rise given to school staff of up to 3.5% was not given to further education. Again, that is simply not fair. We must stand up against it, because our colleges and their staff do brilliant jobs.
The second issue I will raise is the problem that this country has with productivity. The UK ranks poorly in terms of skills comparisons. The UK is in the bottom quartile of the OECD for level 4 and level 5 technical skills. Our colleges are the means of doing something about that. Productivity has been an issue in the UK economy for a very long time indeed, and it is our colleges that will be the answer.
It should also shame us as a country that, according to a report from the Centre for Social Justice, 85% of people who start their working lives in an entry-level job will finish their lives in an entry-level job. That is an appalling statistic, showing that only 15% of people escape and move on.
Our colleges are great poverty-busting institutions. They are the means by which we have the high skills that lead to higher pay and help people escape poverty. That is why further education is essential. We want our colleges to offer more. We want them to be open in the evenings and at weekends, so that people in those entry-level jobs can upskill while they work, in order to progress, to get higher pay and to put food on the table for their families and look after them. That is why this debate is so important.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Recently, Carolyn Fairbairn, the director general of the CBI, spoke at Cambridge Regional College and said that further education colleges have “politically been neglected”, which has led to their historic underfunding. I think that theme will come through in many of the contributions this morning.
I represent an education city, but I see it as my business to speak up just as much for the further education sector as for the famous universities for which Cambridge is known.
When I spoke recently to the director of Cambridge Regional College, Mark Robertson, he detailed many of the funding issues that have been raised this morning. I asked what it would take for him to really make a difference. He smiled ruefully at me and said, “Even a 5% uplift would be absolutely game-changing.” It seems to me that it is important to get that across today: colleges are not asking for a revolutionary change regarding their settlement; they are asking for a relatively small reversal of the damage that has been done over the last decade.
The situation is particularly difficult in areas such as mine, where staff face very high housing costs, there is a lot of churn and a lot of people cannot afford to live and work there. Cambridge is an expensive city and if we compare the pay with that in some schools, we see that colleges are working at a systemic disadvantage.
One key issue is that students are being put through maths and English retakes consistently. I am told by staff that the retakes are very, very difficult. It is very hard to teach people who really do not want to be there and who are almost being set up to fail. I hope that the Minister will consider revisiting that issue, because frankly there are other ways of assessing whether people have the appropriate skills to take them forward. From what I hear, it seems that the retakes process is proving counterproductive. When I speak to Pete Mulligan, a local University and College Union representative, he says that it is really difficult for FE staff who can see ways of taking people forward when those people are being forced down a very narrow route.
I will not repeat the figures that we have heard this morning, but I suspect that the strong message to the Minister from both sides of the Chamber today will be that as we come to the spending review, particularly in the light of the skills challenges around our changing relationship with the European Union, it is really important that we get this matter right. Obviously, there will be an argument about funding and the comprehensive spending review, but the fact there are so many Members here this morning—I have counted at least 20 Members on each side of the Chamber—sends a strong message to the Government that the situation needs to change.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Further education is the crucial but sometimes forgotten link between secondary schools and universities; it is very much the Cinderella service. It can pave the way for an excellent university career or provide the opportunity to learn the vocational skills required to enter a competitive professional field, and is just as important as secondary or higher education. We cannot afford to neglect further education and we must correct the disparity in funding.
As many colleagues have said, the national funding rate for 16 and 17-year-olds has remained frozen since 2013-14, yet we know that, as with our schools, the cost pressures on our colleges are considerable. If we do not address that, there will be a huge issue—it has already been growing year on year.
Despite that, our schools and colleges have been doing an excellent job with the resources they have. Two colleges in my constituency, Colchester Sixth Form College and Colchester Institute, are both bucking the trend. In my constituency, A-level attainment is far above the national average, which is remarkable. Huge credit deserves to go to the teachers, staff and leaders who work within our schools and colleges. However, we cannot expect this success to continue if we do not take action to address the rising costs faced by schools and colleges, and their underfunding.
Those rising costs are having an impact: 51% of colleges and schools have dropped courses in modern foreign languages; 38% have dropped STEM courses, which we know we so desperately need; and 78% have reduced student support services or extracurricular activities, with significant cuts to mental health services.
Julia Lopez
A problem that I find in my constituency is that there is a disconnect between the jobs being generated by the economy and the ability of our education sector to provide the right skills for those jobs. Havering Sixth Form College, which is in my constituency, plays a key role in that process. For instance, going down the nursing associate route will be critical for our public sector. Trying to get that match between the public sector, the economy and our education sector is critical, which is why this debate is so important.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is our colleges that are working closely with industry to ensure that our future workforce have the skills and competence that are needed to thrive and develop careers within those sectors. It is important that we keep that link alive.
As Members have mentioned, the Raise the Rate campaign is calling for the frozen national funding rate for FE students to be increased to at least £4,760 per student, to bring it closer to the level spent on 11 to 16-year-olds, which is some £5,341 per student.
I will conclude by saying that if we believe in social mobility and equality of opportunity, the heart of that process is within our education system. It is imperative that we invest in our people. I know that the Minister cares passionately about this issue. One of the frustrations with debates such as this is that we make the arguments to Education Ministers who know the arguments well and are well-versed in them. Therefore, this is really a message to the Treasury, and we say loudly and clearly, on a cross-party basis, that we need more money for our education budget and, in particular, for the Cinderella service that is further education.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on students and we provide a voice for students in both further education and higher education. In this place, we spend a lot of time talking—rightly—about higher education, but not enough talking about further education. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and on the work that he does with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). It is a real pleasure to see so many colleagues attending this debate; I am sure that it will send, through the Minister, a powerful message back to the Treasury.
I will keep my remarks brief. It is a delight to be able to scribble out many of the comments that I was going to make because so many other Members want to contribute to the debate.
I will briefly make a couple of points about Sheffield College, which provides a great education for 17,000 students from entry level to level six, across 25 subject areas. Crucially, 53% of its students come from disadvantaged postcode areas, including 75% of its BME students. Half of its 16 to 18-year-olds receive financial support from the college, because they come from low-income households.
When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) made her first speech as Prime Minister—that seems like a very long time ago—she said that her Government
“will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”
That is exactly the mission of Sheffield College and of the FE sector. Our college has strong leadership. It is ambitious for its students and in its mission to enable social mobility, and it is committed to upskilling, retraining and developing the skills of adults across the city.
Ahead of today’s debate, I asked the college what it needed to fulfil its role, and there were four asks. The first was that within the wider debate on education funding, 16 to 18-year-olds are recognised as a priority. College funding has fallen by 30% over the past 10 years, and that must change. Secondly, it asked that additional funding be made available for adult students. Continuing on from previous cuts, the college’s indicative adult budget—
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We need to add that further education colleges are the best opportunity for lifelong learning.
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Lady is exactly right, so it is disappointing that we see consistent cuts in the adult budget. In the year ahead, Sheffield College faces a further £120,000 of cuts, even though it is best placed to meet the needs of both individuals and the local economy.
The third ask is for funding to enable the college to recruit competitively. It is simply wrong that the average FE teacher’s pay is £7,000 less than that of a schoolteacher. The Government refuse to underpin FE pay awards in the way they do for schools. That is not fair to staff and it makes it difficult to recruit, often in key vocational areas.
Fourthly, the college asks for funding in capital investment. Our college has good buildings, but it struggles to maintain up-to-date learning resources, particularly in expensive areas such as engineering. The college wants to ensure that all students experience real work environments wherever possible, but in too many areas resources are not up to industry standards.
Finally, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students and as someone who is committed to student wellbeing and conscious of the challenges of mental health in our schools, FE colleges and universities, I would add that colleges have not had the necessary resources to provide the support that FE students need. I hope that the Minister will make the argument to the Treasury for redressing the underfunding of recent years and ensure that our colleges have the funding they need to make the real difference that they seek to provide for students.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate on such an important topic. We have heard powerful arguments on further education funding, which I myself will come to shortly, but we should first take a moment to recognise the real achievements we have seen in further education in the past few years.
All Members here today will have some fantastic colleges and sixth forms in their area. In Bexley, we are fortunate to have a campus of London South East Colleges, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills visited last year. She toured the campus, met students, apprentices and tutors and observed a number of lessons and activities. The college appreciated the visit, as it enabled it to showcase the outstanding work done by students, the facilities, and the plans to help upskill people in our area.
Much has been said about the financial challenges that further education establishments face. Although further education seems to be the poor relation of secondary and higher education, we must not forget that in the “Further education and skills inspections as at 31 August 2018: main findings” document, 81% of the 1,040 providers inspected were judged good or outstanding. We should praise lecturers in particular; I want to praise mine in London South East Colleges. They should be valued more, and it is really disappointing that they are not paid at the same level as teachers.
We need to realise that these colleges are the engines of our future economic success. They provide the young people we will need, when we leave the European Union, for the future of our economy, and the opportunities for our country to thrive in the global world.
We need to address the T-levels that are coming in, which we welcome. The £500 million investment, however, will not fully materialise until 2023 and, when it does, the majority of students will still be doing academic or applied general qualifications.
We need to ensure that further education establishments provide opportunities for older, as well as for young, people, and for social mobility. In my view, social mobility is absolutely key to the future of our country, and FE is the engine that can deliver it.
Time is short. There are so many more issues I would like to raise, but I will not repeat what colleagues on both sides have said. We hope that the debate will give more ammunition to my right hon. Friend the Minister in her campaign with the Treasury, to ensure that we get the extra funding we need for the FE sector. Education funding at all levels should, of course, be seen as a necessary investment for our country and should be increased, but FE colleges in particular should be a priority.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) not only on his eloquent speech but on taking so many interventions. I also congratulate every Member who is here, because their presence sends out a strong signal, not only to the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, who we know gets the message, but to the Treasury. I hope that the televisions in the Treasury are blaring away with Westminster Hall on the screens, because it is the Treasury that needs to get the message. That is why a cross-party consensus is so important. We are all essentially saying the same thing—that further education has been overlooked and needs sustainable, long-term funding.
We are lucky enough in the Black Country to have some fantastic colleges, including City of Wolverhampton College. It is a place that is close to my heart because I studied my Spanish A-level there alongside those I studied at school. The college provides vital educational opportunities to both young people and adults. It offers more than 300 vocational and academic qualifications to 4,500 students, covering a wide range of full and part-time courses, including a well-regarded journalism course. It also has some fantastic, but expensive to maintain, facilities that enable people to train in the trades, such as plumbing.
Many of the facts and figures have been covered by colleagues, but it is worth saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently said that further education was the “biggest” loser in cuts to education. It simply cannot be right that funding per pupil for 16 and 17-year-olds has been frozen at £4,000 since 2014 and £3,300 for 18-year-olds, or that lecturers are paid about £7,000 less than teachers. It is not about just the money or the statistics; it is about what we value as a society and what our objectives are. If we are serious about tackling inequality and about ensuring that our young people, and adults who have perhaps missed out on opportunities at school, fulfil their potential, we need to do something about the situation.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
In Sheffield, we have a tale of two cities. The difference in life expectancy between the east and west is 10 years. One of the biggest differences is that in the east we have little access to schools with sixth forms, so FE is a really important unlocker for social mobility. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is fundamentally a class issue?
Emma Reynolds
Indeed. If we are serious about social mobility, we must fund further education better. More broadly, if as a society and as an economy we are serious about attracting more investment into the UK and competing in the world and, crucially—the hon. Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Gloucester mentioned this—if we are serious about tackling low productivity, we cannot do anything about those things unless we invest in the skills of our young people and adults. We know that we have a problem with that in the UK; it is not a new problem. It is pretty clear to everyone here that we need sustained increases in funding for colleges, and the Raise the Rate campaign will, I hope, ultimately be successful.
The colleges have done a good job in raising the problem. Often in education debates, we focus purely on the early years, which are very important, and on primary and secondary and then university education, and further education is overlooked. That is why today’s debate is critical.
I say again that I hope the TVs in the Treasury are switched on to Westminster Hall this morning. I thank the Minister for her advocacy. This is not just the right thing morally; increasing and sustaining further education funding is the right thing to do for the prosperity of our country.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Thank you for putting me on the list, Sir Roger. It is lovely to be in a Chamber in which, for once, everybody is largely agreeing with each other. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on having introduced today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on the cross-party campaign to get this issue on the agenda ahead of the spending review. Even in these uncertain times, we must continue to fight for causes that we believe in. This is one I believe in, because I had something to do with further education many years ago before I went off into the realms of drama—come to think of it, I am back there now.
I will focus on the much-welcomed introduction of T-levels, which provide a multi-faceted and practical approach to education and prepare students for the needs of industry. Successful delivery of T-levels requires teaching staff with specialist industry expertise, up-to-date equipment, and smaller class sizes, all of which require more funding. For T-levels to be viable, the Association of Colleges believes that we need to introduce a base rate of £1,000 per student as a minimum. We need to get those T-levels right, as they provide the knowledge and experience needed to open the door into skilled employment. Such a potentially transformative scheme cannot be delivered on the cheap: a higher level of investment must be maintained.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Yesterday, a group of us met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to urge that FE college funding be increased in the upcoming spending review. Petroc College in North Devon is eager to get on with delivering the T-levels, exactly as my hon. Friend has mentioned. Does he agree that that is a vital thing to do?
Giles Watling
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly what we are here to do, and judging by the comments from around the Chamber, I think that everybody else agrees with him as well.
I want this scheme to be a success, because I am sure that it would be particularly popular in my Clacton constituency. My area of Clacton lags behind the average in Essex and the national average for the number of members of the workforce without any qualification at all, which is why I encourage the Government to invest more in adult education. In fact, the only area in which we in Clacton beat the national average is the number of people who are economically active but have no qualifications; they make up nearly 10% of our workforce. I know from my conversations on the doorstep that people in Clacton have a real appetite for further education, and we have a great facility in Adult Community Learning Essex. I encourage the Government to take investment in adult learning seriously. It will pay great dividends in many areas, especially those such as Clacton, where many small and medium-sized enterprises are crying out for a skilled workforce.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this important debate. I have in my constituency Hopwood Hall College, a further education college that is in the top 10% in England for level 3 progress and has the highest achievement rate for vocational level 2 in Greater Manchester. That college is rooted in our local community, and is crucial to driving social mobility and providing the skills needed to boost our local and regional economy. My partner taught art and design at Hopwood Hall before he retired. I mention that because, later in my short speech, I will refer to his experience of teaching young people.
Many young people in my constituency also choose to study at sixth-form college. In my neighbouring constituency of Rochdale, we have Rochdale Sixth Form College, which in January this year was named the highest-ranked sixth form college in the UK for value-added performance for the fifth year running. However, although my local FE institutions enjoy success, both have expressed to me their concerns about funding issues and their long-term sustainability. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted the shocking cuts to 16 to 18-year-old and adult education over the past decade. It has stated:
“Funding per student aged 16–18 has seen the biggest squeeze of all stages of education for young people in recent years.”
Those funding cuts are affecting the sustainability and quality of FE provision, with colleges having to deal with an average cut of 30% while costs have increased dramatically.
Research from the House of Commons Library shows that when the educational maintenance allowance for 16 to 19-year-olds was scrapped by the coalition Government and replaced with a bursary scheme, expenditure through that scheme was only about a third of the expenditure on EMAs. When that happened, my partner was still teaching, and I remember him telling me that students were forced to drop out of his course simply because they could no longer afford the bus fare to get to college. The scrapping of the EMA scheme was a cruel blow to the most disadvantaged students and their efforts to access an education, and a Labour Government would reinstate that scheme, which has been proven to support retention of students in education.
Clearly, something has to change; this situation is just not sustainable. The solution, as many Members have already said, is to raise the national funding rate for 16 to 18-year-olds. It makes sense to do so, as there is little point in investing in pre-16 and higher education if the pivotal stage in the middle is overlooked.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on his efforts to secure this debate.
We all know that Governments over the past 10 years or so have had to make some difficult financial decisions, but the FE sector has perhaps suffered more than others, and certainly more than is desirable. In places such as my constituency and the neighbouring town of Grimsby, which have suffered a significant decline over the past 30 or 40 years following the loss of their core industry, too many of our young people have been lacking a vision of the opportunities that lie ahead. FE colleges have done considerable work in building that vision; indeed, the principal at Franklin College in Grimsby said to me that his students
“go on to contribute to the town, region and country”.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that colleges play a vital role in the community, not just through education but through a far wider range of activities, as mine in Stafford—a member of the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group—does?
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Colleges have given young people in the Cleethorpes area the opportunity to gain vision and ambition, and have helped to retain those young people in the local area once they have qualified, which is particularly important.
In the short time I have, I will mention some of the other points that the principals at my two colleges have drawn to my attention. They have, of course, highlighted the fact that, over the past 10 years, there has been a 30% funding cut in FE colleges. The principal at Franklin College pointed out that, to start off with, that actually helped, inasmuch as principals recognised there were economies to be made and efficiencies that could be gained.
One important point both principals have drawn to my attention is that FE students in this country get 14 or 15 hours’ tuition per week on average, compared with 26 hours in Canada, 27 in Singapore and 30 in Shanghai. We are in a competitive situation, and we need to train our young people to go out and get the qualifications that enable them to compete for jobs in what is, whether we like it or not, a global economy.
The Minister can see from the number of Members who have turned up how strongly feelings on this issue run across parties. I urge her to take these points away. We will give her our full support in her battles with the Treasury.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for having secured this important debate. I pay tribute to all the local colleges in the north-east and especially Sunderland College—I regularly meet its representatives, who do such a great job with ever-decreasing budgets.
Between 2010-11 and 2017-18, spending on further education and skills fell by £3.3 billion in real terms. At the same time, employers are reporting another rise in the number of vacancies they are facing as a result of skills shortages. To bridge the skills gap, further education needs investment. However, over the past 10 years colleges have had to deal with an average funding cut of 30%, while at the same time costs have risen dramatically. Funding for adult education has been cut by 62% since 2010.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I am fortunate to have a good college, Riverside College, in my constituency. However, one thing that concerns me about the cuts and the impact of the funding problems with colleges is that adult education, which my hon. Friend just touched on, is a second chance for many people who may not have done well at school. They have another opportunity through further education to do better. We need more support for that.
Mrs Hodgson
Absolutely. In the past 10 years, we have seen enrolments for adult education drop from 5.1 million to 1.9 million. Funding for students aged 16 to 18 has also been cut by 8% in real terms since 2010. The current base for 16-to-18 education is just £4,000 a year, as it has been since 2013, with no increase.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
One simple thing that could be done today would be to fund 18-year-olds at the same rate as 17-year-olds. It is absolutely wrong that they get less funding than children a year younger than them. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mrs Hodgson
I absolutely agree. We also found that the budget did not increase when education became compulsory until 18. It just does not reflect the current cost of high-quality courses, including the new T-levels, as we heard from a Government Member.
I do not know whether the Minister wrote to everyone, but I got a letter from her last week, in which she said:
“A strong FE sector is essential to ensuring everyone in our society, whatever their background, has the opportunity to succeed…At its core this means colleges need strong leadership and must be financially sustainable and resilient, so that they can invest in learning and respond to changing demands.”
Given that acknowledgement from the Minister that FE must be financially sustainable and resilient, can she please justify her Department’s constant budget-slashing of FE?
As we all know, education is the key to a bright future. We must ensure that everyone, no matter their age, has the opportunity to learn and develop new skills. The only way we can achieve that is for the Government to invest. I hope they are listening, and I hope the Treasury is watching, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said. People in Sunderland and across the country deserve better than the current funding model.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on their leadership and on securing the debate.
Putting the funding of further education on a sustainable, financially secure and long-term footing is vital for those young people who will reap the dividends, for those communities in which colleges are based and for the greater benefit of UK plc. Without that investment, social mobility will decline still further and the productivity gap will widen to a chasm.
In Waveney, East Coast College, which includes Lowestoft Sixth Form College, provides an important bridge from the classroom to university and the workplace. In a coastal town where there has been economic decline, they are the cornerstone on which we can rebuild the economy and give young people the opportunity to realise their full potential.
The case for better funding of further education is strong. It will improve social mobility, particularly in those parts of the country where people have often been left behind. It is a vital stepping stone from the classroom to the workplace.
Peter Aldous
I will carry on, if that is okay.
We are on the cusp of technological change and the advent of the fourth industrial revolution, and we are transitioning to a low-carbon economy. FE has a vital role to play in that by providing the skilled workforce that the UK needs to be a global leader. In Lowestoft, the energy skills centre is being built at East Coast College. It will provide students with the skills required for exciting, well-paid jobs in the fast-emerging offshore wind sector.
FE also better prepares students for university. The University of Suffolk has come a long way in a short time. It works closely with FE colleges across the county. A properly funded FE sector is vital if the early success is to continue to be built on.
The T-level initiative is welcome, but to be a success it needs to be properly funded. In towns such as Lowestoft, the college is an important component part of the local community and civic society.
I have got to the end without mentioning the “B” word, but I will do so now. Whatever happens with Brexit, there is no getting away from the fact that the British economy is competing in a global market. Our people are the engine of our success. At present, due to a poorly funded FE sector, we are stuttering along in third gear. It is time to fill the tank—or, should I say, charge the battery—so that we are running in top gear.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my fellow west country MP, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for bringing forward this timely debate.
City College Plymouth has been on something of a rollercoaster ride in recent years. The college went into financial crisis last autumn, with a series of changes in principal. The current interim principal, Penny Wycherley, has been outstanding in steadying the ship and getting ready for her successor to start this year, but we need to acknowledge that the college is in financial crisis, and that is for a number of reasons.
First, the cuts to the FE budget have reduced the overall amount of money that the college has to spend. Changes in the way that funding is allocated have disproportionately hurt many colleges in the far south-west. The college has taken on huge financial capital liabilities in building the rather brilliant new STEM hub in Plymouth, which is delivering not only for City College, but for the wider city and the priorities of the local enterprise partnership. That has contributed to an exceptionally high level of recruitment of learners aged 16 to 19, meeting the local skills gap.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about capital expenditure. The previous Labour Government had a Building Colleges for the Future programme, which was cancelled in austerity times. Now, many college estates simply cannot keep pace, including in Chesterfield.
Luke Pollard
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The lack of funding has meant that City College Plymouth has been unable to keep up with many of the repairs on its old building, leading to leaking roofs. It has not been able to replace technology with what it needs and has moved to leasing technology. It now faces financial barriers in moving off leasing to get the latest technology it needs.
Funding has also had a huge impact on college staff, who have not been given a cost of living pay rise or any other pay rise this year. That is not because they are not brilliant—they are exceptional—but because there is simply no money in the coffers for the college to do that. In an economy where the skills FE college staff have are in high demand, that means we are losing talent and skills. In particular, the engineering staff can earn salaries of £10,000 more simply by leaving the college and the jobs they love, and that is not right.
We need colleges like City College Plymouth to be motoring. It is a forward-thinking college. It has just launched its fantastic marine autonomy course, which will equip our young people with the skills they need to work in Plymouth’s world-class marine autonomy sector. Importantly, it will retrain people who work on the more heavy engineering side of the marine industries in the updated skills they need to succeed in a much more integrated digital marine environment.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate case for his local college. I had hoped to do a similar thing for my local college, Calderdale College, but as the clock is ticking down, I am not going to get the opportunity. Calderdale College has been forced to close its outreach centres, cut English for speakers of other languages by 50% and close some adult learning classes completely. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is counter to the social mobility that we all agree is so important?
Luke Pollard
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
The key message I want the Minister to take away is that we are all on her side in her battle with the Treasury. We are all ready, but we must resolve to not just talk a good talk about FE; we have to not vote for cuts to FE, and we have to make clear to Ministers, whether we are on the Government or the Opposition Benches, that we will not support further cuts to FE. An FE lecturer has tweeted me to say that people want:
“A real increase to bridge the gap, not just make it less small.”
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
It is great to see so much support for this debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) secured, and for his letter, even at this time of complete distraction.
I enjoyed and benefited from a traditional and formal further education at a school sixth form, Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School in Ashbourne. There are still some very good examples of that education in my constituency of Northampton South. My focus today, however, is on FE colleges such as Northampton College and Moulton College, which serve my residents.
As speaking time is extremely short, I will make two quick points. More investment and spending on FE, like other public spending, does not have to mean higher tax rates. It does mean higher tax take, though, and the two are not the same. With a happy circularity, that higher tax take is brought about by higher productivity, which is itself brought about in large measure by better and more relevant skills and training, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said. Clearly, FE is key.
A good measure of the pressure from voters for the B word, as already referenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), related to migration levels. With a reduction in migration, the need for higher level skills and training is even greater. The incentive for employers to support and demand them is all the more obvious as the need to get more out of scarcer labour and therefore pay people more grows. So it is time for us to ensure that the Government are the fairy godmother for the Cinderella service referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) to ensure a glittering and glorious educational future for our country.
Derek Thomas
In Cornwall tomorrow there is a meeting with parents and people with special educational needs because they are being told that their days will go from five days to three. As my hon. Friend says, investing in people for the future is the right to do.
Andrew Lewer
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which stands in its own right as a very good intervention.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I apologise to Members who have not been called, but I am afraid time has beaten us and I now have to call the Front-Bench speakers.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate today. In the time I have available I cannot do justice to the multitude of speeches made, but Members have shown a sharp eye for details about travel, EMAs, keeping rural and other colleges going, unused space, capacity opportunities, FE in the global market and the drop in level 2 and 3 qualifications.
Gordon Marsden
No, I am not taking any interventions.
It is hugely important that FE is getting the attention it deserves; it is heartening and unprecedented in this year. Members have spent half the Session raising FE funding and raised related issues in recent education questions. The excellent Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is in his place, showed that not new challenges, not new issues, but new urgency was required from the Government, given the state of FE funding. The recent statistics from the Love Our Colleges and Raise the Rate campaigns have highlighted that brilliantly.
We know that the statistics are a standing rebuke to the failure of all three Governments in the past decade to fund FE adequately. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that spending and skills fell by £3 billion in real terms between 2010 and 2011. Those needing second and third chances have been hard hit and adult education has seen its budget cut by almost half. According to the Association of Colleges,
“Over the last ten years, colleges have had to deal with an average funding cut of 30%...Further education is the only part of the education budget to have had year-on-year cuts since 2010.”
The skills Minister knows all that and, to her credit, has tried to push her colleagues in Government, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, on the funding envelope, but so far answer comes there none. This is at a time when the massive uncertainties around Brexit and its future impact on our economy make the role of FE in delivering new hope and skills all the more essential than at any time in the past 20 years.
Despite a unified sector lobby of the Government last autumn on the need for the Government to reverse their damaging cuts, the Chancellor has persistently failed to acknowledge it. In his financial Budget of October 2018 he talked about schools getting little extras, but FE did not even get the crumbs. Both he and the Education Secretary cannot be oblivious to the demands not only of the colleges but of everyone else involved in the world of FE—the training providers who make up 60% to 70% of delivery; the employers who see skills programmes, both highly specific and generic, as essential to their success; and the LEPs, combined authorities and mayors, all of whom see such things as essential to success in the 2020s. As a consequence, the fabric of sustainability for colleges has become fretted and threadbare. Last year, the Department stated that there could be a best-case scenario of 80 colleges at financial risk and a worst-case scenario of 150.
The National Education Union’s briefing states that colleges have suffered from cuts in activities such as tutorials, enrichment activities and additional courses. The Sixth Form Colleges Association has said similar things. Students have progressively had financial support reduced since the education maintenance allowance went, and the bursary fund that replaced it was insufficient. I know that the principal and teachers at the superb Blackpool and The Fylde College are moving qualifications across the piece, and they think action is overdue.
The Government must reassess urgently how they fund their apprenticeship programme. Last week Government stats showed that the apprenticeship starts between August 2018 and January 2019, two years from the levy launch, are still beneath the number of apprenticeship starts for 2016-17. A large part of that is because level 2 apprenticeship starts have fallen by more than a third in the space of a year. It is increasingly apparent that the Government levy is not designed or fit for purpose for SMEs or non-levy payers, as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and Mark Dawe have consistently argued. We need to have a situation in which non-levy payers can train apprentices for small businesses, as some are having to turn them away.
We have seen apprenticeship figures go up, but the costs go up as well, so we have a Government, as the hon. Member for Gloucester emphasised in his speech, who need to take action at both ends of the cycle. Qualifications at levels 5 to 7 need to work. We need to sustain the fuel for them, but, as we have heard, levy payers and SMEs are starved of cash. The Government will seek to address some of the drops in qualifications through T-levels, but the money will not be seen in full until 2021-22 and we have no idea whether it will be sufficient. If there is a capacity issue, and, as we hope, T-levels take off, what capacity will the colleges have to deliver them if no additional funding is allocated by the Chancellor? Where are the institutions supposed to deliver them? Even more crucially, how will we bring them to fruition in the 2020s? Our concern is that setting T-levels simply as a competitor to A-levels will be counterproductive to their take-up and viability. We have to focus on 16 to 18-year-olds at level 3 standard whose preparation has been largely geared towards taking A-levels. Assuming that that will fly for T-levels is a risky strategy.
The AOC has said that the Government need to have a base rate increase of £1,000 per student as a minimum, so will the Government commit to that? Successful delivery requires teaching staff, as we have heard, with specialist industry expertise, up-to-date equipment and smaller class sizes. Average college pay is £30,000 compared with £37,000 in schools, and it significantly lags behind industry. The University and College Union, nationally and its many excellent campaigns countrywide, has said the same for years. Who will actually teach the T-levels? Existing teachers who have received very little in funding for years for CPD or new teachers?
The UCU spelt out in crisp terms in its submission to MPs for this debate what they ask Chancellor and the Education Secretary to do. Pay has fallen in value by 25% in real terms since 2009. Teachers in FE colleges earn on average £7,000 less than teachers in schools. We hear a lot about red lines these days, but will the Minister commit to a red line for her Department to get that changed? Since 2010, around 24,000 teachers have left the FE sector: a third of the total teaching workforce. What will the Minister do to ensure that colleges can increase the pay of teachers and ensure that we have a qualified workforce to teach T-levels after their introduction?
It is clear from what we have heard today that more and more Members across this House, especially in this Chamber, know that FE is an essential factor in delivering the fair, socially mobile, economic and community strategies that we will need in the 2020s. We in the Labour party, with our new national education service plans and now the launch of our lifelong learning commission, see FE as an essential building block to achieve that process. Progression, progression, progression is stamped through everything that we need to do in this area as through a stick of Blackpool rock. For now and for today, what Members in this House—all of them—require from the Government is something a little more short term and modest. If the Minster wills the ends, she must will the means. She must require from the Government something a little more. We must commit here and now to start to make good on the promises and the rhetoric that have so far not been backed up with the funding that FE needs, particularly from the Treasury. She and the Treasury must hear loud and clear all of the excellent speeches and demands, and praise for their colleges and training providers, that Members have spoken of here today.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), ably abetted by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), on securing this debate, which follows on from our debate on college funding on 21 January. That 45-odd colleagues attended demonstrates the considerable concern across party boundaries about further education funding. I wonder whether that is a record for a Westminster Hall debate—perhaps the Clerks will let us know.
Scott Mann
I am grateful. If the Minister looks around the Chamber, she will see many colleagues who represent areas that have not benefited from globalisation. As we move into a skills-based economy, may I urge her, on behalf of the people of Cornwall, to strengthen every sinew when she goes to the Treasury to argue for this money? We are desperate for these skills.
Anne Milton
I would love to give way to lots of hon. Members, but time does not allow. I will make some progress.
FE delivers not only high-quality provision for 16 to 19-year-olds but lifelong learning, which was mentioned briefly. As we heard in a moving story from one hon. Member, it gives people chances to learn that they never had as a young person and the opportunity to retrain when their skills become outdated, to gain higher qualifications and to move along the career path. It also provides patient and caring support for those who are struggling to gain basic skills, opportunities for families to learn together and support for parents to help their children, as we all want to help ours. Although further education’s breadth is its strength, that breadth makes it hard to define: it is not school, but it is not university, so we need to articulate a clear vision.
As hon. Members have noted, funding per student has not kept up with costs. For 16 to 19-year-olds, we have protected the base rate of funding at £4,000 until the end of this spending review period, but that has been eroded by inflation. The Association of Colleges and the Raise the Rate campaign’s funding impact survey report have highlighted many of the issues and financial challenges. Reductions in 16-to-19 funding over recent years have partly been due to falling numbers of students; the number of 16 to 18-year-olds in the population has been falling for 10 years. The level is now 10% lower than in 2008-09, which poses difficult challenges for the sector, but it will start to increase again from 2020.
FE colleges are complex institutions that need to manage ebbs and flows in training provision and finance. On average, vocational courses cost more per student than academic programmes, so we provide more funding for most vocational courses for 16 to 19-year-olds through the programme cost weights. Further education institutions therefore actually receive more funding per 16 to 19-year-old student than school sixth forms, but that is purely a reflection of the greater costs.
I think that the thrust of the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was that we need to do more to help our colleges. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) spoke about the productivity potential of people who attend FE and about fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) spoke about equality of opportunity; I wonder whether he might send a nice YouTube clip of this debate to the Chancellor, who I am sure would find it riveting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) rightly noted that, despite it all, 81% of colleges are rated as good or outstanding.
Our debates on FE put the case for it front and centre as a driver of social mobility. Bearing in mind the precious little time we have had today, I am sure that the opportunity for part 2 of this debate will come very shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), spoke about T-levels, which will receive an additional £500 million in funding when they are rolled out. In fact, it was in Clacton that I met a woman who said probably one of the most poignant things I have ever heard. She had left school with no qualifications and was a single parent with three children, but she had gone back and done level 2, level 3 and level 4 qualifications. When I met her, she was doing level 5. I asked her why she had done it—what had suddenly inspired her to do it when her children were in their teens? She said, “Because I thought I was worth it.” There is nothing better to hear.
Wages of FE staff are lower than in schools. FE staff are incredibly committed individuals who carry on because of the demonstrable difference that they make to young people’s lives. Further education colleges are independent and set their own wages, but that does not make recruitment and retention any easier.
Differences in life expectancy were briefly mentioned. One of the most significant correlators with poor health is level of education. Better-educated people have better health; I say that as a former public health Minister. The issue needs to be highlighted, and there may be an opportunity to expand this campaign into questions of health—I put that forward as a suggestion, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe will take it on board.
One hon. Member spoke about second chances, and we often talk about third or fourth chances. I have had the privilege of seeing those fourth chances change people’s lives.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the Minister and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on their speeches. One of the great issues in my constituency is mature students who had a family early or who did not have much interest in education at school but pursued an interest in it at a later stage. Further education can give them that opportunity, as it does at South Eastern Regional College in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that mature students need opportunities in the same way that young people do?
Anne Milton
Very much so. This is absolutely about those second, third and fourth chances.
My hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), both former superb Ministers, are now putting their weight behind the campaign to raise the profile of FE and highlight just how important it is for the prospects of young and—never let us forget—older people.
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—keep on meeting her. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), among many others. They all made excellent contributions.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I hoped to speak in this debate on behalf of Askham Bryan College and York College, two outstanding colleges in York. I urge the Minister to ensure that further education colleges have a fully professional mental health service, because the levels of self-harm, eating disorders and even attempted suicide are way above the national average. Will she respond to that point?
Anne Milton
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There are younger people, and indeed older people, for whom the school education system has not worked for whatever reason, who probably have a history of failing external examinations and who are often quite vulnerable or have special needs and all the associated problems that go with it.
We are listening to a wide range of feedback from many sources, including hon. Members present, and we are looking at the efficiency and resilience of the FE sector. The post-18 review will take a systematic view of provision and funding across post-18 education. We are also looking at levels 4 and 5, where we know that we need a much wider programme. If I had time, I would love to talk about the national retraining scheme, a partnership between the Government, the TUC and the CBI that we hope to roll out later in the year.
I must say to the shadow Minister that comparing apprenticeships today with apprenticeships before the 2017 reforms is like comparing apples and pears. I know that the apprenticeship system is not perfect, but believe me, in National Apprenticeship Week, I saw the extraordinary progress that has been made in the past year.
I am very aware that there are non-levy employers who are not yet on the apprenticeship service, and I want them to be on it as soon as possible. We are currently at the mercy of procurements and training providers. With procurements it never feels as if we are getting the right answer, but I assure hon. Members that all the levy money is recycled into the apprenticeships system.
I have been to south Devon, Bradford, Uxbridge, Harlow, Gloucester and many other places. Some colleges are thriving and some are struggling, but it is clear to me that they all have a motivation that is rarely seen in any other sector. We have put in £470 million to help colleges to restructure, but until we collectively recognise the added value that FE colleges give us, we will not see the changes in funding that are needed. That is how we give people a chance to turn their lives around and ensure that whatever their background, wherever they come from, whatever their family do and whoever they know, they too can get a great job and a career.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe once again on their campaign, and I know that they will now be joined by many others. For me, they are pushing at an open door. Amid the cries for schools funding and the concerns for universities, FE can get lost. However, if we accept not only the personal gain for individuals but the potential productivity gains for the country, the case to the Chancellor is surely clear. With tin hats on, we continue into battle to make the case for further education.
Richard Graham
This debate has been 90 minutes of passionate appreciation of and support for further education colleges. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, who is my co-skipper of the campaign for fairer funding for further education colleges, and all hon. Members who have spoken today for their huge message: “Let’s get the right resources for these national engines of skills, aspiration and social mobility.”
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we move on, may I thank all hon. Members for the courtesy with which this debate has been handled? In one form or another, all hon. Members who remained in the Chamber and sought to intervene got in—my congratulations.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
NHS Pension Scheme: Tapered Annual Allowance
(5 years, 8 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
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the tapered annual allowance on NHS pension scheme members.
I have been aware of this issue for some time, as a local MP and as a former pensions law practitioner. Primarily through the work of the journalist Josephine Cumbo at the Financial Times, it has come to light that it is significantly more widespread and has much more serious implications for the NHS than I had originally understood.
I do not want to take up too much time on what the annual allowance taper is and how it works, partly because it is boring and incredibly complex, but a small amount of background is needed before explaining why it is an issue in the NHS and the consequences that seem to be flowing from it.
The tapered annual allowance was introduced from 6 April 2016. In short, it meant that from the 2016-17 tax year, a reduced annual allowance may apply to all pension savings by or on behalf of a member, depending on the level of taxable income within the tax year. It applies to individuals with a threshold income of more than £110,000 and an adjusted income of more than £150,000. For every £2 that an individual’s adjusted income goes over £150,000, their annual allowance for that year reduces by £1. The minimum reduced annual allowance someone can have is £10,000.
It will not be a surprise that the calculations of threshold and adjusted incomes are not simple in the least. They are massively confusing and make it very difficult to predict what tax bill will be incurred. As it cuts the annual allowance for the current year, an individual has no idea how much pension saving they can make.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Financial Times reported that some doctors, GPs and dentists will receive a potential tax bill of £80,000. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we and this Government have a duty to ensure that NHS staff have all the information so that no one faces unexpected tax bills?
Paul Masterton
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the key issues is that because it reduces the tax allowance in the current year of work, it is impossible to work out what the annual allowance will reduce to, and people cannot plan. I will go on to raise some examples from my own constituents, as I am sure other hon. Members will want to do.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
A constituent told me that he has been advised to take early retirement to avoid taxes. Does my hon. Friend agree that retaining long-serving consultants with experience in their fields is vital to the NHS’s success?
Paul Masterton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why the issue is so important. I appreciate that we are talking about people who earn a lot of money and who have good pension schemes, but there is a serious potential knock-on effect of very senior doctors turning down hours or taking early retirement.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I received an email from a consultant who works in my constituency, informing me that one of the unintended consequences of the new arrangement is that he has reduced the number of hours he works in the NHS.
Paul Masterton
That is exactly right. I asked for a Treasury Minister to reply to this debate, because the underlying legislation is a Treasury issue, but it is important to have a Health Minister here today to hear at first hand the stories that are being raised by MPs.
In recent months, it has become increasingly apparent that the pension tax rules are resulting in unexpected tax charges being levied on a large number of GPs, senior doctors, surgeons and consultants right across the UK. I believe that if the issue is not addressed, serious capacity gaps in the NHS will only be made worse.
In Scotland, 7.6% of consultant posts are vacant, and more than half of those have been vacant for more than six months. There is a similar picture in the NHS in all other parts of the United Kingdom. In a recent survey by the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, more than 40% of the doctors questioned said that pension taxation changes had led them to change their plans and retire earlier than expected.
The way in which the tapered annual allowance operates means a significantly reduced annual allowance ceiling is hitting many of the NHS professionals that I, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), mentioned in their mid to late careers. As their entire income is taken into account for the purposes of tapering, the threshold can be breached even by doing non-pensionable work, including covering for absent colleagues, extra programmed activities or waiting list initiatives. NHS staff on pay-as-you-earn cannot avoid the notional pension input amount calculation. As a result, many consultants are being hit with unexpected five-figure tax charges. A number are now dropping extra work, turning down hours or going part-time to negate or avoid the penalties.
Of course high earners should pay their fair share, and all the doctors who have contacted me want to do so, but they are paying rates of more than 60% as a result of the taper. Some are paying effective rates of more than 100%. Many consultants who continue to do non-pensionable overtime are effectively paying the Government to go to work, while receiving no additional pension benefit.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful, forensic speech on this critical issue facing the national health service. Several of my constituents have been in touch about it. One consultant mentioned that the impact of this issue on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will be huge, because waiting list initiatives ensure that the health board does not receive penalties, so it militates against efficiency in the national health service and will cost more in the long run. It is a total false economy. Surely the Minister can take action with the Treasury to get this sorted out quickly.
Paul Masterton
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Our constituencies share a health board. The examples of people who work for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde show exactly the consequences and knock-on effects.
One surgeon contacted me to tell me that he was hit with a tax bill of £62,000 because he received a national award. People who receive a bonus or a pay rise can find themselves with a whopping tax penalty as a consequence. Rigid pay and pension rules in the NHS mean that their ability to mitigate the issue is pretty much non-existent, certainly compared with people in the private sector, because there is not the flexibility to reduce contributions or request cash in lieu of pension if there is a danger of breaching the allowance. The only option, as we have heard in Members’ examples, is to opt out of the scheme altogether or drastically reduce working hours. This issue is becoming a huge driver not only of early retirement, which in itself is extremely serious, but of enforced reduced working hours. That is having an impact on NHS care and creating lost capacity. Waiting times, which are a problem in various areas across the UK, are hit because these perverse rules mean that consultants refuse the overtime that is needed to help clear the backlog.
The investigation by the Financial Times found that the issue had increased the risk of delays in cancer diagnosis in some parts of the UK and lengthened waiting times for procedures such as hip replacements. Critical areas such as intensive care and radiology are also being affected. One consultant said that about 50 fewer patients were being seen per week in the cancer clinics they cover, as a result of doctors turning down extra shifts.
A consultant who lives in my constituency contacted me following receipt of a tax charge of £29,000, despite doing no work outside the NHS. He told me that he will now have to drop a session of clinical work to try to ensure that it does not happen again, and that he is actively considering early retirement, having reluctantly started to reach the conclusion that there is no incentive for him to continue his career beyond the age of 60. He has been forced into that position by the clear unintended consequences of the pension system.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; the interest today shows that there is probably support for a Back-Bench business debate. He is absolutely right to highlight the huge financial penalties that people are incurring. One of my constituents in Barrachnie is looking at a £15,000 bill, which he got at the end of January. That is not helpful. He has already told me that he is planning to retire early. Surely these examples only make the case to the Government that they need to take action.
Paul Masterton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising another specific case. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the added weight of evidence.
Another of my constituents, who has worked as an NHS constituent for 14 years at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow told me that he is employed on a 40-hour per week full-time contract and provides eight hours per week of additional clinical work, making 48 hours in total. He does not do any private practice outside the NHS, but he was hit with an unexpected bill of nearly £17,000 as a result of the tapered annual allowance. The only way the consultant can avoid those charges is to reduce his income below the various thresholds, and the only way he can reduce his income is to reduce the amount of work he does for the NHS. He has told me that he has no desire to do that and would happily volunteer to do extra work occasionally at weekends to tackle waiting lists or fill gaps in the service, but the tax implications make that impossible and he has already stopped doing any extra work.
Another consultant from East Renfrewshire with 16 years’ experience—eight as a consultant—told me that he was actively declining extra work to support stretched services in order to avoid the tax penalties. That means that he does not apply for the discretionary points that are awarded for additional work that is taken on above the normal daily remit, such as developing new services, research and teaching. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said, that impacts not just on the daily running of services, but on the development of a culture of excellence within the NHS.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. My hon. Friend is a great thinker on pensions, which is the main reason I wanted to come here today, and I want to ask him a very simple question. Does he wish to dispense with the annual allowance and lifetime limit, or does he want a special dispensation for senior NHS workers, who are quite high-income earners?
Paul Masterton
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments, which are undeserved. There is a wider issue of the general complexity of the systems of reliefs and allowances in the UK pensions system. I hope not that there will be one single dispensation for one area of the public sector, but that we start to recognise that we need to look at the way the system is operating more generally and to work out whether some of the allowances and reliefs are actually necessary or effective, and whether they should be subject to a broader review.
A recent report showed that over 50% of respondents reported using the NHS “scheme pays” facility to pay off their unexpected tax charges. However, this does not work for all cases, and the amount is effectively treated as a loan that is then paid back from the retirement benefit, with interest charged against the pension at high rates. That means it is usually costlier than paying up front, particularly for younger members. I fear that this issue could see us sleepwalk into a deepening workforce crisis in the NHS and result in consultants leaving the NHS early, even though they still have the skills and experience we need. Those individuals are important not just for patients, but for junior doctors in terms of the training and mentoring they receive on the job.
The British Medical Association firmly believes that long-term changes to the pensions taxation system are required in order to remove the disincentives that exist, and I certainly agree. The Library’s excellent briefing on pensions taxation makes reference to the impact of changes in the annual allowance on the public sector, and notes that the 2017 report of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body requested more evidence about the impact of the annual and lifetime allowance on early departure rates. The Treasury indicated that it would consider revisions to the NHS pension scheme if there was evidence that the number of doctors and dentists taking early retirement as a result of its inflexibility was substantial.
I want to ask the Minister a series of questions, and I appreciate that she might not be able to cover them all today. A number of them fall within the remit of the Treasury, but hopefully she will be able to take those away and arrange for either herself or a Treasury Minister to get back to me. First, what discussions did the Treasury have with the Department of Health and Social Care when the tapered annual allowance was introduced, and was this ever flagged as a potential problem? Secondly, what evidence has the Treasury collected on the numbers of doctors and dentists taking early retirement, following the 2017 report? If the answer is none, why is that the case and when will analysis be carried out of the impact on changes to the lifetime and annual allowances on the NHS? If evidence has been collected, what were the findings of that analysis, and are any changes being considered?
Thirdly, what consideration has the Treasury given to a review of the annual allowance taper more generally, perhaps as part of a wider review into simplifying the incredibly complex system of reliefs and allowances in the UK pensions system? Finally, have the relevant Government Departments had any discussions with the relevant parties on whether permitting more individual flexibility in the NHS pension scheme could be a solution? That is something that NHS Employers is calling for. This issue is not specific to the NHS—I have heard in recent days from armed forces personnel—but it does appear to be an area with a particular problem.
Although I appreciate that many people will not hold great swathes of sympathy for individuals on such high earnings who will still receive high levels of retirement pension that most of our constituents can only dream of, the reality is that if this results in consultants with much-needed expertise turning down work or leaving the NHS altogether, it will have major implications for the provision of services and the quality of care our constituents receive right across the UK, whichever colour of Government is in control of their NHS.
I am sure that the Treasury did not intend these changes to force experienced and committed consultants, surgeons and GPs to do less work for the NHS, but this is the reality being faced in the hospitals that serve my constituents and the Minister’s. It is good that the British Medical Association and NHS Employers recognise that this is a serious concern and met last week to discuss it, but they have not agreed a solution or a joint action plan. In reality, the ball is in the Treasury’s court.
I absolutely respect and agree with the Government’s position that we need to get the balance right between encouraging saving and managing Government finances, but this issue cannot be easily ignored. Legitimate aims to restrict tax perks for the wealthiest in society are exposing ever increasing numbers of long-serving and highly experienced NHS workers to massive tax charges. If we want high quality care in the NHS in Scotland and across the UK, we need senior doctors who have devoted their professional lives to the care and wellbeing of our constituents. It is ludicrous for us to face a situation in which the pensions system is acting as a disincentive and effectively forcing consultants to choose between working for nothing and affecting patient care.
I hope that this debate provides the first opportunity for us to say clearly that, whether the answer lies in adding flexibility to strict NHS pay and pension terms or with the Treasury using this as a reason to take a fresh look at the ridiculously complicated tapered annual allowance, this is an unintended consequence of the UK’s complex pension regime, which we need to sort out quickly to let those consultants get back to work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) for securing the debate; he made a characteristically thoughtful contribution.
We are the custodians of taxpayers’ money and need to manage the country’s finances in a way that gives value for money and allows us to live within our means. We also need to accept that when we make changes to the tax system, it changes people’s behaviour. I am grateful for the opportunity to look at these issues through the prism of the impact on the workforce in the national health service.
As my hon. Friend said, the annual allowance is a fiscal measure that operates across all pension schemes in both the public and private sectors. Alongside the lifetime allowance, the Government keep this measure under review to ensure that the benefit of tax relief on pension scheme contributions remains affordable. It is in fact one of the most expensive tax reliefs in the personal tax system. In 2015-16, income tax relief and employer national insurance contributions relief cost the Exchequer around £50 billion, with around two thirds going to higher-rate taxpayers. That is an important point to bear in mind, because we need to ensure that our tax system is progressive and managed efficiently. We will want to look at tax reliefs that favour the highest-rate taxpayers to ensure that our overall burden of tax is appropriate.
The reforms made to the lifetime and annual allowances in the previous two Parliaments are expected to save over £6 billion a year, and are necessary to deliver a fair system and to protect public finances. To ensure that the benefit the wealthiest pension savers receive is not disproportionate to that of other pension savers, the Government restrict the amount of tax relief available. The annual allowance does not taper below £10,000, and fewer than 1% of pension savers will have to reduce their saving or face an annual allowance charge because of this policy.
Julian Knight
Does the Minister agree that a potential issue is that this acts as a cap on the amount of tax relief that is given out? We know that this is not progressive in terms of higher-rate tax relief on pensions. Would it not be better for us to look at a system in which we have a flat rate of 25p, 28p or 30p in the pound, rather than the higher rate? That would mitigate, or mean that we did not need, those lifetime and annual allowances?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I shall not stray into policy that is not mine and that belongs to Her Majesty’s Treasury—that is a very convenient way for me to duck the issue. It comes back to the point that the moment we start to introduce complexity into our tax and allowance system, it brings perverse incentives. The overall goal in recent years has been to bring our public finances back into kilter, having had excessive deficits. It is only natural that the Exchequer looks at where reliefs that are funded by the state are going to higher-rate taxpayers. That is where we have got to with regard to the impact on public sector pension schemes, which by their nature are as we describe.
The NHS pension scheme is a generous and valuable part of staff reward packages, and is one of the best schemes available, notwithstanding the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire. It is right and proper for all hard-working NHS staff to expect financial security in retirement after dedicating a lifelong career to looking after the nation’s health.
For some senior clinicians, the generosity of the scheme, combined with their comparatively high levels of pay, means that their pensions build up to a level that breaches tax limits. Both the annual and lifetime allowances encourage pension growth at a steadier rate that is more aligned with typical pension growth experienced across the general population. To illustrate that, under the 1995 section of the NHS pension scheme, members who accumulate pension benefits worth near the £1 million lifetime allowance will have built up a pension of around £46,000 a year, plus a tax-free lump sum of £138,000 on retirement. Pensions of that size provide substantial financial security in retirement, and it is right that the Government take steps to limit the tax incentive to save further.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about the impact on our NHS workforce. With respect to discussions between the Treasury and the Department on the introduction of the allowance, the 2015 manifesto committed to
“reducing the tax relief on pension contributions for people earning more than £150,000.”
That was a manifesto commitment we had to deliver. The tapered annual allowance fulfils that commitment and applies to all contributors to pensions, in both the public and private sectors. The impacts of the change, including on the public sector, were carefully considered at the time.
My hon. Friend asked about the number of doctors and dentists taking early retirement. Data from the NHS pension scheme administrator shows that 494, 490 and 424 hospital doctors took voluntary early retirement in the financial years ending 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively. Those early retirements represented approximately a third of all hospital doctor retirements in those years. With respect to GPs, in 2016, 695 took early retirement; in 2017, 721 took early retirement; and in 2018, 588 took early retirement. Those figures represented more than half of all GP retirements in those financial years. With respect to dentists, 145 retired early in 2016, followed by 143 and 115 in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Those retirements represented approximately 40% of dental practitioner retirements in those years. There is clearly an impact on the behaviour of practitioners.
My hon. Friend asked what consideration the Treasury has given to a general review of the annual allowance taper and the broader system of reliefs in relation to pension saving. Those are matters for the Chancellor, and the Government will continue to review all aspects of pensions policy, in line with our annual assessment of the public finances.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is highlighting some of the concerns that have been expressed about the unintended consequence of a capacity problem for the NHS as a result of the changes to pension relief. Given that health is a devolved issue in Wales, have the British Government received any communication from the Welsh Government expressing concern about the changes?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I have not, but this is about the impact of the pension and tax regime on the sector. I am not aware of any conversations with the Treasury, but if the hon. Gentleman has concerns, I encourage him to make representations. There are always unintended consequences with any policy, and we always need to challenge the operation of our policies to make sure they are in the right place and to decide whether they need to be refined, tweaked or changed in any way.
The Government recognise that pension tax considerations will contribute to decisions by some senior clinicians to retire early or to reduce their NHS commitments. For those who wish to remain in the NHS pension scheme, the annual allowance is a disincentive to take on additional work and responsibilities —that is very clear. The extra income increases the impact of the tapered annual allowance.
Some clinicians may judge that a reduction in their current NHS commitments, while maintaining scheme membership, better serves their financial interests. Employers tell us that the reduction in service capacity can be difficult and that capacity is expensive to replace. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are listening carefully to the concerns raised by senior doctors and NHS employers about the impact of the tapered annual allowance.
That doctors may seek to limit or reduce their NHS commitments is of concern to Ministers, and something on which we are keeping a close eye. Maximising the participation of our clinical workforce is clearly essential to the delivery of our ambitions for the NHS. The quality and quantity of our workforce is always an important factor in the extent of the delivery of our objectives.
As an immediate step, the Department has sought to make available to NHS pension scheme members all possible flexibility under Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs legislation and the current fiscal framework for public sector pension schemes. The BMA asked that we extend the scope of the voluntary “scheme pays” facility—implemented by the NHS pension scheme—to cover the payment of tax charges from breaches of the tapered annual allowance.
We have done that, but we have also gone further. The NHS pension scheme’s voluntary “scheme pays” facility has also been extended to cover tax charges of less than £2,000, which means that, from tax year 2017-18, a member can elect for the scheme to pay 100% of their annual allowance charge to HMRC on their behalf. The “scheme pays” facility allows individuals to settle their tax charge without needing to find funds up front, but HMRC requires an adjustment to the benefits accrued by members if a defined benefit pension scheme pays an annual allowance charge. That adjustment must be just and reasonable, and with regard to normal actuarial practice.
Accordingly, the NHS pension scheme applies an interest rate to the charge paid on the member’s behalf. That charge is deducted from the capitalised value of the pension at retirement, with the interest rate set at the scheme discount rate. I recognise that, for some younger clinicians with many years before retirement, the compounding effect might influence the attractiveness of “scheme pays”, so I encourage members of the pension scheme to seek formal financial advice.
The Government will look at potential further measures. There is clearly considerable interest in this matter, and I assure hon. Members that we keep the impact of public sector pay and pensions policies under constant review, and take account of total reward and fiscal considerations. As my hon. Friend recognises, the issue is complex, and it is difficult for the Government to strike the right balance among competing interests. I do not think, however, that there is a case for exempting high-earning NHS staff, such as GPs and consultants, from a tax measure that is intended to apply to high-earning individuals. I also doubt that clinicians necessarily expect to be treated differently from other taxpayers.
The fiscal framework within which the NHS pension scheme operates is an important consideration. The NHS pension scheme, like most public service pension schemes, does not manage a fund of assets out of which pensions are paid. It is instead financed on a pay-as-you-go basis similar to that of the state pension, with contribution income defraying the cost of pensions in payment. Any change to scheme rules that provides flexibility could therefore have a significant effect on contribution income. That would have an impact on the Exchequer. We must balance that fiscal risk against the benefits of providing additional flexibility. Any proposed pension flexibility would be a matter for the Chancellor.
Clearly, this is a complex subject that we will have to keep under review in recognition of the fact that it drives behaviour in the NHS in a way that could cause us difficulties in the delivery of our overall commitments. We clearly want to retain the best, most qualified and expert staff in the NHS, and we need to be vigilant to ensure that our tax and pension benefits system does not stand in the way of delivering the best possible NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Youth Inmates: Solitary Confinement
(5 years, 8 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
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered youth inmates in solitary confinement.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to lead this extremely important debate. Much of the focus in our criminal justice system is rightly on our failing probation system following privatisation and the rising violence in our prisons, but worryingly little attention is paid to what is going on in our youth estate—particularly to the children and young people detained there—and to the concerning use of solitary confinement.
It may come as a surprise to some people listening to our debate who know me well that I became interested in this issue, but it links closely to work we have been doing in the Education Committee on exclusions, children with special needs and disabilities, and the link between children who have undiagnosed special needs, disabilities and emotional problems being excluded and then ending up in our prison system.
What is happening to those children and young people is extremely worrying. Just before the debate started, I was saying to a colleague who sits on the Government Benches that the issue forms part of a wider picture. Although it is one for the Justice team, I hope the Minister talks closely to the Education team, as well as to social services and local government teams, about how money can be invested in our vulnerable children as early as possible to give them the best possible chance in life so that they do not end up in the criminal justice system.
No one wants to see a child sent to prison. That is a failure on the part of our societal infrastructure. Everyone would agree that, for any young child to go to prison, there must have been a failure somewhere in the support given to that child—at school or on the part of society or social services. We have failed a young person who ends up in our criminal justice system.
Young offenders institutions must balance punishing a child for committing a crime—there should of course be consequences for criminal behaviour—with the need for rehabilitation and the need to assist the child to go on to become a productive member of society who will not offend again. Having been a teacher for 11 years, I know that we should never give up on children, even when our patience has been tested to the absolute limit. I am sure that parents agree—we do not give up. If we have a child who has reached the point of being involved in criminal activity and is being rightly punished for it, youth offenders institutions should be the opportunity to turn that around and to start again.
Getting the correct balance between those goals should be the guiding principle of youth justice. Falling too far towards punishment and not addressing the problems that caused a child to offend in the first place—perhaps undiagnosed special needs or disabilities, or social and emotional problems—means that the child will reoffend immediately on release. All that we would have created is an older criminal. Falling too far towards rehabilitation means that the victims of the crime will feel let down by the system. The use of segregation in young offenders institutions does not create the right balance between those goals—between giving young people a consequence for their actions and an opportunity to set themselves on the right path for the future.
Let me be clear about what I mean by segregation. I do not mean time out as an immediate response to violent or disruptive behaviour, or situations in which children must be physically isolated for their own protection or the protection of others. Solitary confinement—segregation, isolation or whatever else we might call it—is the deliberate removal of an individual from association with others. It was defined by the prison and probation ombudsman in a 2015 “Learning lessons bulletin” as
“an extreme and isolating form of custody”.
Whatever the Minister might say in his remarks about solitary confinement and segregation—that children are not subject to solitary confinement—the Children’s Commissioner has been clear, as have the current and the previous chief inspector of prisons, that the conditions to which children are exposed fit the definition of solitary confinement.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. On the important point about a precise definition, or otherwise, does she agree that we need to get it fully and fairly established in the public mind so that we can determine year on year whether the problem is getting worse or improving? It does not help things if the goalposts change slightly, depending on the administration in place and how it does isolation or segregation.
Emma Hardy
I completely agree. That seems to be a sensible way to go forward with the problem. If we are to look at whether the use of solitary confinement is increasing, it makes sense to have a clear definition that everyone understands.
Most adult prisons have a dedicated segregation wing or unit, sometimes known as a care and separation unit, which allows prisoners to be moved off the main residential wings. That is mirrored in young offenders institutions, despite the fact that they hold much younger people. The conditions and rules for secure training centres, which hold even younger children, are a little better—children there are isolated in their own rooms or cells, or in empty classrooms or spaces, for shorter spans of time. We cannot escape the fact, however, that some children and young people are being held in conditions of isolation that are comparable to those for adults.
When assessing whether our existing segregation rules are fit for purpose, it makes sense to look first at the international rules setting out standards for the use of solitary confinement. The UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, also known as the Mandela rules, state that given the devastating effect of solitary confinement on physical and mental health, it should be used only in exceptional cases, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible, after authorisation by a competent authority and subject to independent review.
The Mandela rules prohibit entirely the use of indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement—lasting more than 15 days—alongside its use for particularly vulnerable groups. Rule 45 explicitly states:
“The imposition of solitary confinement should be prohibited in the case of prisoners with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.”
Given that prohibition of solitary confinement for more than 15 days and for those with mental health disabilities whose conditions would be exacerbated by solitary, among whom we could reasonably include children, the UK clearly and worryingly appears to be straying into territory that might violate the Mandela rules.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree not only that children of themselves are obviously vulnerable, but that the children she is talking about are particularly vulnerable? A disproportionate number of children with autistic spectrum disorder are in prison, as are many children with mental health issues and many who have been in care.
Emma Hardy
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We know that from overwhelming evidence. So many children in our prison system have undiagnosed special educational needs and disabilities. As I said, what motivated my interest in this issue was all the work we are doing on children with special needs and disabilities, as well as the desperate need for early intervention and early support. When these children finally get to the point at which we as a society have failed them—when they are in prison—we should be pouring in money and resources, because how else will they ever have a chance to have some sort of effective life?
There are concerns right across the board about how segregation is used in the youth estate. Last October, after investigating those concerns, the Children’s Commissioner published her report on the use of segregation in youth custody. In it, she found excessive use of segregation in the youth estate, with children locked up and isolated in greater numbers, despite the overall numbers of those in custody falling at the same time—we are sending fewer children to prison, but those we are sending are more likely to end up in solitary confinement.
The Children’s Commissioner also found that the average length of segregation had doubled, with about 70% of episodes of segregation believed to have lasted more than a week, and many of those episodes involving the repeated segregation of the same children and young people. Again coming at that from an education point of view, I would say that any behaviour consequence that just results in the same behaviour over and over again is failing—it is not working, and it is time to try something else.
While the Children’s Commissioner notes that some children choose to self-isolate for a variety of reasons, which may be behind some rise in the figures, that does not account for all of it. If individuals self-isolate on a regular basis, surely that is an indication of serious problems with that young person. By self-isolating, they choose not to be part of the collective society of the institution, which is bad for their wellbeing, increases loneliness and isolation, and hampers their safety and mental wellness.
The Children’s Commissioner is not the only one who has raised concerns; many others have done so for a considerable time. The Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health all condemn the use of segregation and its impact on young people. They criticise the Ministry of Justice’s continued use of the practice. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently argued that punishment for punishment’s sake brings out the worst in some young people, and does nothing to help them become positive members of society.
Rather than improving behaviour, solitary confinement fails to address the underlying causes, and creates problems with reintegration. I return to my previous point: what is the purpose of putting people in prison? Surely, it is twofold: it is punishment and consequence for their behaviour, and it is a chance for them to rehabilitate to become productive members of society. If we make that behaviour even worse by putting them in solitary, we are failing, because all they will do is leave prison, return to society, reoffend and cause grief and hassle for the people living in their areas.
The Howard League for Penal Reform, which does some excellent work in this area and provides legal advice and support to children in custody, reported more requests for assistance in respect of isolation than use of force. More people go to it upset about their child being isolated than about force, despite the fact that the media tend to cover the use of force more than they do isolation. In the written evidence submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights during its inquiry, a number of cases were highlighted, all of which make worrying reading and show that the numbers highlighted by the Children’s Commissioner are not just statistics but represent real children being harmed by segregation, who will go on to commit crimes again in their local area.
The evidence included a 16-year-old white British boy who was placed in isolation, locked in his cell for 23 hours a day for days on end and allowed out only for 30 minutes of solitary exercise. A 16-year-old black British boy was placed in a segregation unit, locked in his cell all day for 37 days and allowed out only with three members of staff. A 15-year-old Asian boy with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was segregated while his mental health deteriorated. A 17-year-old black British girl with a history of trauma was forced on to a behavioural management plan that was reportedly not compliant with the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998, and was threatened with segregation if she did not comply. The mother of a 17-year-old black British boy said he spent over a month in segregation, and reported significant mental confusion in her son afterwards. Just as worryingly, the Howard League has reported that young people who experience solitary confinement often have their access to legal advice and support denied or restricted. Will the Minister look into this issue urgently?
Some might say, “It may be slightly excessive, but these children committed crimes and deserve to be punished.” They may say, “If the prison needs to segregate them to keep order, it should be allowed to.” But we have to look back to our guiding principle of balancing punishment and rehabilitation. It is undoubtable from the evidence I mentioned that the balance is wrong; if we had struck the right balance, incidents of segregation would be going down, not up. It is vital that we design our system to address the underlying issues that led to the young person being sent to prison in the first place if we want to prevent future crime.
The biggest effect that segregation has on young people is on their mental health, contributing to what is already a severe and dangerous mental health epidemic right across our prison system. According to a survey by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, more than 30,000 people in the whole prison system are reported to have a mental health or wellbeing issue at any one time. That is around one in three of the average monthly prison population, which is a higher rate than in the general population, where one in four people are believed to have a mental health issue. However, given the poor screening and under-resourcing in relation to prisoner mental health, the widely held belief is that the rate is much higher.
The Howard League’s work on segregation—particularly its legal work to represent offenders who are subject to segregation—found that many prisoners who are removed from association are disturbed or damaged individuals who have behaved in a particular way as a result of their vulnerabilities, and who present no risk to security. Research published by the Prison Reform Trust into segregation units found that segregation was harmful to health and wellbeing, as over half of segregated prisoners said they had problems with three or more of the following: anger, anxiety, insomnia, depression, concentration and self-harm.
I keep making the same point: the problems will not go away by isolating children and young people—they will only get worse, which means these people will go out and reoffend. The Prison Reform Trust’s “Deep Custody” report found that more than two thirds of the 49 officers interviewed in segregation units said that most or the vast majority of segregated prisoners had mental health needs. Many offenders said they believed their mental health was a factor in the decision to segregate them.
Not only is the Ministry of Justice segregating people excessively, but it is doing it to those who are already dangerously at risk. The reason why that is so unhealthy and why we should be so appalled at the segregation of vulnerable young people is that a wealth of evidence shows that segregation has an adverse effect on anyone, let alone someone already with a mental health condition. The keys aspects of segregation noted by the Prison Reform Trust—social isolation, limited sensory stimulation, enforced idleness and increased, continuous control—are known factors in damaging an individual’s health and wellbeing.
Victoria Prentis
I do not know the answer to this question and I wonder if the hon. Lady does: is there a proven link between segregation and suicide risk?
Emma Hardy
I would not want to say so without having the facts in front of me, but that is an interesting question, and I hope the Minister will pick it up in his remarks. There is certainly a link through the effect on children’s mental health problems. We will have to see what the evidence says, but it would suggest there is a link.
Symptoms found in children who have been segregated include anxiety, depression, unprovoked anger, lack of impulse control, cognitive disturbances, hypersensitivity, paranoia and full-blown psychosis—to name just a handful. Those are not just minor issues. Indeed, the Prison Service’s own guidance on segregation shows that it recognises the potentially damaging effect of segregation on mental health and on those who may be at risk of suicide and self-harm. Prison Service Order 1700 states:
“research into the mental health of prisoners held in solitary confinement indicates that for most prisoners, there is a negative effect on their mental well-being and that in some cases the effect can be serious.”
Not only does solitary confinement have a detrimental impact on the mental health of the children, but it increases their chances of harm to themselves and others and makes them much more vulnerable to reoffending when they are released.
Those reports and findings relate to investigations and studies in the adult estate, but considering the widespread problems in the youth estate, it is more than reasonable to assume that the same issues are present in the youth estate too. It is certainly reasonable to accept that the proven negative impact on adults applies more so to children and young people, particularly when it is a widely accepted medical opinion that mental development, during which individuals are more susceptible to mental harm, does not cease until around the age of 25. Children who are more susceptible and more likely to be influenced are at risk of greatest harm.
The impact of segregation on children and young people goes beyond just the medical, because of its widespread use to restrict the ability of a child or young person to be part of purposeful activity in the institution holding them. That restricts their ability to take part in classes, studies, workshops or training that helps them increase their chances of not reoffending and of achieving a better life on the outside after their release, compared with when they went in. The Minister will know how desperately low literacy and numeracy levels are among children in prison, and how that limits their ability and chances when they are released. Surely, taking them away from study would have a further negative effect when they are released.
In theory, removal from free association, through segregation, should not prohibit access to education, but in many cases children are in their cells all day and allowed out for only 30 minutes. They do not always have access to education packs while in their cells. That has a negative mental impact. If they had something to do, and something to keep them occupied and busy in a constructive way, it would help to stave off the damaging effects of isolation on their mental health.
When the child comes out, they are further behind their peers, have even lower prospects and become vulnerable to reoffending. These children will not leave prison to go on to become productive members of society; they will leave and reoffend. That is failing children, it is failing victims of crime and it is failing society. The only thing that is changing is that young offenders are becoming adult offenders, so it is time for the Ministry of Justice to think again.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4 pm. We have time for Back-Bench speeches until 3.37 pm, when we will go on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and the three minutes at the end for Emma Hardy to sum up the debate.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). She and I talked about this issue before the debate, so there will be a lot of overlap in our presentations. I am glad that she has interpreted the title of the debate very widely. It talks about youth inmates, which includes not only children but young adults. I will say a little bit about that in a minute.
As well as the hon. Lady’s Select Committee, the Justice Committee published a report, “The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system”, some time ago in 2016-17, because we were concerned about the effectiveness of the treatment of young adults in the justice system. We looked at the needs of young offenders, their characteristics and the effective ways of working with them. We also went on a visit—this was in the days when Select Committees could go on international visits—to New York and Boston. Hon. Members may view the American system of governance as much stricter and tougher than ours. I could not disagree more. We found a much more liberal approach to the situation, with children treated kindly and efficiently, which had an enormous impact on their rehabilitation.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, although I fully accept his experience on his visit to that part of the United States, does he agree that, given the complexity of its judicial system, there may well be rapid and significant variations from state to state in the United States of America?
John Howell
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However, we chose New York because it has some of the toughest criminals. It was interesting to see how the situation was dealt with in that sort of tough environment. As I said, we found a very liberal approach.
Back here, we interviewed the parents of people who had been to youth offender institutes or prison, and I have to say that the feedback was utterly tragic. The personal circumstances of the individuals there had to be heard to be believed. We have to do all that we can to stop those sorts of occurrences. We looked at a wide range of ages—from 10 to 24—encompassing everything that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about, and one thing we found was that men and boys account for a disproportionate number of people going through the criminal justice system. There is something about men and boys that needs to be tackled, and seriously.
One thing we looked at was the neuroscience involved—neuroscience has become a very trendy subject these days. A lot of work has been done on how the brain develops and matures. The evidence we heard showed that the brain develops over a much longer period, and that what we would generally describe as maturity is the last thing to develop. The hon. Lady may have experienced that with some of the children she used to teach. I hope that rings a bell with her.
It was also interesting that, as people got nearer to 18, their risk of reoffending actually increased, not decreased; there was something about reaching that age that created much more turbulence for the individuals. We all ought to look very carefully at how solitary confinement or segregation is imposed on people in that situation, because it is not something that immediately jumps out. In fact, there is strong evidence that involvement with the criminal justice system actually hinders the development of boys and men.
We need to do a risk assessment of people who are segregated or put into solitary confinement, and I will give a few examples of the stunning evidence as to why. Learning disability among young people in the general population is between 2% and 4%, but among those in custody it is 23% to 32%—an enormous increase. Communications impairment in young people in the country is between 5% and 7%, but for those in custody it is 60% to 90%—almost all the people there have a communication difficulty. Those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are 1.7% to 9% of the general population, going up to 12% of those in custody, while those with autistic spectrum disorder run at a maximum of 1.2% of the general population, going up to 15% of people in custody.
We are dealing with a group of people who are, by any stretch of the imagination, vulnerable and who tend to need a risk assessment in order to assess how they are doing. I know that it has already been mentioned, but the number of people in youth custody who have already been in statutory care is running at two thirds—an enormous number. Again, that suggests that we are dealing with a very vulnerable population.
To produce the report, we went to the young offenders institution at Aylesbury, where we found that segregation was used to reduce movements among young people. However, staff said that it was used when there was a risk of gang violence. Dealing with gangs in that young offenders institution was one of the biggest tasks for staff. We asked the young people there whether they would like to be in a young offenders institution or a prison—many there at the time had been in both—and they said that the change in the justice system when going from a youth institution to an adult institution was like dropping off a cliff face. It is very important to bear that in mind, because it goes back to how they are treated in relation to solitary confinement.
The Justice Committee interviewed, and I have subsequently spoken to, Lord Harris of Haringey, who produced a very good review that looked at young people detained in cells for a long period. He found there might be occasions when it was to the benefit of the individual young person to be confined to their cell. If they were being threatened, it was better to put them in their cell. However, it needs a risk assessment of their mental health and their ability to function there. Whatever the Minister says, in my experience and that of the Committee, that does not happen routinely enough, and that is a big lack in the system.
I will quote one of the witnesses we interviewed, Dr Gooch from Birmingham Law School:
“It is the decisions that are made about how you use segregation and how you use adjudications, which are the disciplinary hearings within the prison. It is the values that you instil about where the boundaries are and what is appropriate behaviour. When you talk about grip, it is not about punitiveness. It is understanding when to lock down and when to use your security measures to their full potential”.
That sort of understanding of the situation suggests there needs to be much greater flexibility in the youth justice system.
I want to pick up on one last point: the question of purposeful activity, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle also mentioned. I have a strong view that we need to instil as much purposeful activity as possible, whether it is in the adult or the youth section of the criminal justice system. On a former Justice Committee, I went to a prison in Denmark where the prisoners, who had a wide range of ages, cooked their own food. For safety’s sake, the knives were chained to the wall. Nevertheless, the very fact that they were able to cook their own food had a big impact on their ability to be rehabilitated. It made a great impression on me and when I came back I mentioned it to the then Secretary of State, and there are prisons where that happens now in the UK. Instilling purposeful activity into young people through education and skills training or whatever is absolutely essential. We need to keep that going if we are to tackle the problem.
I know the Minister will say that this situation never happens—he is laughing at me now—but that when it does happen a risk assessment is done. All I am saying is that in the Justice Committee’s experience, that did not happen. It is not commonplace for it to happen all the time in every case. Given the history that I have given of the differences between the mental illnesses that the general population of young people have and that those in prison have, it needs to happen.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for securing this important debate. She was absolutely right to do so, as the issue is covered much less than other wide-ranging problems in our criminal justice system. Even within the youth custodial estate as a whole, it sometimes does not get the airtime that it perhaps should. None the less, it is very important. I also congratulate her on making such powerful and substantial points. I will come on to some of the issues she raised, but she comprehensively covered a very difficult area and made particular reference to some of the international rules and laws that we are subject to and that we probably fall short of in terms of our compliance. She mentioned the Mandela rules, which I will come on to later in my speech.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke eloquently and drew on his previous work in this important area. He also spoke well on some of the broader issues and challenges in our criminal justice system. He highlighted some of the disparities around mental health issues—another area that perhaps does not get so much airtime in this place, but that should be of concern not least to the Minister and the Justice team, as well as more broadly across other Departments.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the report published by the Children’s Commissioner’s late last year, which should be a final wake-up call for the Government, as its verdict was so damning. It highlighted excessive use of segregation, solitary confinement or isolation—whatever we want to call it—by institutions holding children and young people, with a rise in the number of episodes of segregation taking place at the same time as we have seen an overall fall in the number of children and young people held in custody and a rise in the length of those episodes of segregation, with many instances going on for many weeks and sometimes months. Although that should be the final wake-up call for the Government, it is far from the first alarm that has gone off, with serious concerns repeatedly raised in recent years by a range of organisations involved in inmate and child health.
The picture painted by the Children’s Commissioner and others might not be the full one; tragically, the situation could be far worse. Hampering the ability of organisations to report effectively on the issue is the lack of data being collected by the Government. The Children’s Commissioner herself stated that the lack of transparency in the recording of segregation is an issue that needs to be corrected. Her report states:
“the number and average length of periods of segregations are not published at all for YOIs...Figures for all segregations of young people should be collected centrally and included in the Youth Justice Statistics.”
On such an important issue as the wellbeing of children and young people, we need better reporting and better data from the MOJ. Frankly, I am alarmed that the data is not sufficiently recorded at present.
What the data and reports do agree on, however, is that segregation has an extremely damaging effect on the mental health of all those subjected to it, and particularly children in the crucial stages of development. The World Health Organisation has identified a range of typical mental health symptoms that are presented among those who have been segregated in custody. Medical associations here in the UK, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health corroborate those findings. That contributes to what is now an unequivocal body of evidence on the hugely damaging effect that segregation has on health and wellbeing.
Segregation poses huge risks of psychiatric and developmental harm, and various studies show that there is also an increased risk of suicide and self-harm among those in segregation. The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is no longer in her place, asked about that, and I think there is certainly a link between suicide and segregation. Our prisons are already in a severe mental health crisis, with more than one in three offenders across the whole custody estate reporting mental health issues, and many more likely to be experiencing them. We should not be adding to those worrying figures by segregating children and young people.
We cannot look at the issue in isolation, and there are other issues within the broader custodial estate that will have an impact on it. The Children’s Commissioner noted that poor child-to-staff ratios are making it harder for children to be moved around the prison. That difficulty is compounded by the overall shortage of experienced prison officers, as those who have gained vital skills and understanding, having worked with children for years, have left the prison service, and by the specific shortage of mental health-trained officers, who were forced out by Government cuts that left staff undervalued when they were being put through increasingly difficult and trying conditions.
The shortage of mental health beds across the country following underfunding and under-resourcing is also forcing many institutions to keep children and young people in segregation for long periods while they wait for mental health beds to become available. That abhorrent practice is damning of the crisis in our NHS. A report by NHS England last year that looked at the characteristics, needs and pathways in terms of the care of young people in secure settings found that 41% of young people placed in the youth justice estate had mental health or neurodevelopmental difficulties, as the hon. Member for Henley pointed out. We must ask whether we should be sending young people with such difficult challenges to custody in the first place, and whether they would be better placed in secure medical institutions that are better equipped. It is clear to me that, with the cuts to NHS services, many mental health services are being reduced in comparison with the need for them. The justice system is being used as a dumping ground for individuals when there is no capacity elsewhere.
We cannot ignore, either, the lack of procedural safeguards that allows institutions to place young people in extended segregation. The Howard League has stated that, when it requests paperwork on isolation—even when it is the subject of a legal challenge—it faces difficulties in obtaining it. It also states that children are denied clear targets to help them move out of segregation. Particularly critical, however, are cases where institutions were unaware that external professionals such as youth offending teams and social workers should be invited to segregation reviews. Coupled with the length and nature of segregation, that all amounts to a wilful violation of the internationally recognised Mandela rules.
It must also be noted that segregation is just one aspect of the many problems with our youth custodial estate that show how unfit for purpose it is—another point highlighted by other hon. Members. One of the biggest issues is violence. The chief inspector of prisons declared in his 2017 annual report that there is not a single establishment in the youth secure estate where it is safe to hold children and young people. That was followed up by his annual report last year, in which he declared that children continue to feel unsafe in young offender institutions, and that rates of violence against both staff and young people are higher than in previous years.
The youth custodial estate also shows how great the disparity between BME and non-BME offenders has become. According to the prisons inspectorate more than half of young people in YOIs are from a black and minority ethnic backgrounds. That is a massive disparity when compared with the general population, and we should be asking deep and serious questions about why our youth justice system and custodial institutions are locking up so many young people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
Staff in the youth custodial estate must be able to maintain order in their institutions, but it must not be through painful restraint techniques or extreme segregation measures. That view is shared by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the UN special rapporteur on torture, who all agree that segregation should never be used on children and young people. The Children’s Commissioner, among others, warns about segregation practices in the youth estate, and the Minister must commit today to an immediate, independent review that has the power to make recommendations not only on the use of segregation in the youth estate, but on every facet of youth custody, with a view to rebuilding the broken system that is failing to keep children safe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, but I suspect I will not detain the House for 42 minutes.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing what is—she is absolutely right—an important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond. The issue has attracted much scrutiny in recent months, and rightly so. As the hon. Lady will be aware, I gave evidence on the subject to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last year. I will of course carefully consider the recommendations from the inquiry.
I am responsible, through my ministerial portfolio, only for under-18s institutions in the youth custodial estate, and of course Aylesbury is not in that group. However, in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), I want to point out that in the adult estate segregation should be used only as a last resort, when prisoners pose such a risk to themselves or others that no other suitable location is appropriate, and where all other options have been tried or are considered inappropriate. However, there is a specific approach for the under-18 estate.
I want to reassure hon. Members from the outset that children are never, and should never be, subject to solitary confinement in the UK. There is no universally agreed definition of solitary confinement, but rule 44 of the UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners—the Mandela rules that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referred to—state that
“solitary confinement shall refer to the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact.”
Removal from association, or segregation, is different. I appreciate that the shadow Minister referred to it as segregation, while others refer to it as removal from association, but I think we are talking about the same thing. It is a last resort for the protection of the child or others. It should never be used as a punishment and our rules are explicitly clear on that. To reiterate, it can be used, and is used, only when a child in custody is putting themselves or others at risk, when no other form of intervention is suitable to protect both the individual or their peers, or staff. I just want to mention in that context that segregation can be removal to one’s own cell rather than to a segregation wing. I shall talk later about the statistics and the impact that that matter has on them.
As to safety, the shadow Minister referred to the 2017 report, and I am sure that he would acknowledge that the chief inspector of prisons subsequently acknowledged that there had been improvement, and that the 2017 verdict on the youth estate was not the current one. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight what was said in 2017, because it was a shocking and important report, and we rightly considered it carefully.
Under rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, children may be removed from association for the maintenance of good order or discipline, or in their own interests, for up to 72 hours. The presumption is that children should be separated—placed in their room —rather than segregated to a segregation unit, wherever it is possible to do so. Children in YOIs cannot be segregated for more than 72 hours without the authority of senior managers in conjunction with the independent monitoring board and healthcare assessments. Segregation can be authorised by the young person segregation review board for up to 14 days at a time to a maximum of 21 days; a prison group director’s authority is required for anything beyond that. The prison group director must review any segregation of a young person that continues for 21 days, and for each subsequent period.
The youth custody service closely monitors the number of children removed from association under rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution rules, to ensure that all relevant management checks are in place—in a moment I will come on to points about mental health and educational assessments, which I know are of particular interest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. Those checks include the number of instances of children being removed for more than 21 days, which require a prison group director review and approval. The PGD will review the situation again after each subsequent 21-day period.
The reasons why children may be removed from association for longer periods of time vary. As the Children’s Commissioner and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, some may choose to “self-isolate”, and refuse to engage with the regime or mix with other children. That can happen for a variety of reasons, some of which I may come to. Other children have been involved in multiple violent incidents, and display violent behaviour towards other children or staff. Each individual case is carefully considered and reviewed to ensure that when children are removed for long periods of time, the reasons for that are appropriate, especially if they are putting themselves, or others, at risk. I labour the point about rules because it is important to be clear that safeguards are in place, and such measures are regarded very much as a last resort, often driven by safety considerations.
As I said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—the hon. Member for Bradford East rightly highlighted this issue—accurate data is vital for the operational running of any organisation, and to understand what is happening. I asked the chief executive of the youth custody service to look into how data can be better collected and collated in a consistent format. Such data is often reported by different institutions in different ways, which limits our ability to draw the clear conclusions that we need to make evidence-based policy.
It is not true that during removal a young person will have no meaningful human contact. The child will continue to have regular contact with staff, and individual regime and reintegration plans are agreed, with the primary aim of reintegrating children back into regular association and a normal regime as swiftly as possible. Staff are expected to focus on helping children to manage their behaviour, so that they are able to return to regular association. Such reintegration plans can include visits back to residential units for activities such as association, and they could even include sleepovers in the child’s normal room as part of that process.
A member of the healthcare team must be informed within 30 minutes of a child being removed from association in a YOI, and they must complete an initial removal health screen for the young person within two hours. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is right to highlight mental health needs, which we seek to pick up through those screenings. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), the hon. Lady mentioned safety in custody and the risk of suicide or self-harm. She is right to suggest that in other contexts some evidence has established a link between isolation in any context and increased mental health challenges, but in England and Wales there have been no deaths among under-18s in prison custody since 2012. As she said, we must do everything possible to ensure that mental health is protected and there is no harm, but thus far we have been partly lucky, and—more importantly—thanks to the diligence of staff in our YOIs and STCs, there have been no deaths in prison custody of under-18s.
While removed, the child must be monitored at a frequency determined by an individual and tailored assessment of their needs. It is desirable to have greater interaction between staff and the child in segregation, to help that child manage their behaviour and return to regular association more swiftly. Such interaction will also alert staff to any concerns about mental health issues, and any risk of self-harm or worse. Every child who has been subject to rule 49 of the YOI rules for a continuous period of seven days must have a detailed short-term assessment of needs initiated. Children removed for a continuous period of more than 30 days must have a detailed care plan drawn up that states how their mental well-being is supported.
John Howell
I hear what the Minister is saying. Will he do me a favour and ensure that he keeps an eye on the situation he has outlined, so that it occurs in every case?
Edward Argar
I am always willing to do my hon. Friend a favour, and he is right to highlight that point. It is important to have processes, but we need to know that they are followed. In a number of cases, I ask for random individual updates and snapshots of information, so that I can get a feel for whether things are being done the way they should be done, and I look at those files as appropriate.
Wherever possible, children should engage with the regular regime, and other children, during their time in custody. However, there are occasions when it is necessary to remove a child from association because their behaviour is likely to be so disruptive that keeping them in an ordinary location would be unsafe, either for them or for others.
Imran Hussain
Perhaps that is one of the reasons why. I did not intervene earlier because I wanted to allow the Minister to progress his points, but does he draw a distinction between solitary confinement and isolation? Does he think that they are two different things? The European Prison Observatory states that those are just alternative terms, and even the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, says that although the terminology may change, those things are the same.
Edward Argar
As I said clearly to the JCHR, removal from association and segregation is different from solitary confinement or isolation. The Mandela rules mention having no “meaningful human contact”, but that simply is not the case when someone is segregated or removed from association. I set out previously just how much direct, meaningful human contact continues throughout that time.
When a child in a YOI is to be removed from association, they must be supported in making representations, with governors taking into account literacy levels, whether they need help from the advocacy service and what might be behind their behaviour—I have met the Howard League, and others, who make that point forcefully and reasonably. Prior to a segregation or removal from association, our experienced staff will do everything they can to de-escalate the situation in other ways. If a young person is removed from association, it is not a case of, “That solves the problem”. That is a reaction and a last-resort response based on safety considerations, and the focus throughout will be on what can be done to support that young person back into association, and address their underlying issues or concerns.
Rule 36 of the STC rules states that a young person who has been removed from association and placed in their room cannot be left unaccompanied for more than three hours in any 24-hour period. Providers keep records on staff observations, which must be undertaken at least every 15 minutes. Authorisation for keeping children “removed from association” is escalated during that three-hour cycle, with authorisation from the duty director to extend beyond one hour. All episodes are discussed at monthly performance meetings as part of the governance and oversight arrangements. In contracted-out STCs, the YCS monitor is informed within 24 hours about any removal from association. The monitor is given a summary of every occurrence of a child being placed in their room within 24 hours, and they receive detailed incident reports that articulate the circumstances that led to that removal.
As I explained to the JCHR last year, when a child is removed from association, they are given as much access as possible to the usual regime, including education and healthcare. That includes not only the provision of education packs and in-room learning but teachers attending to children in their rooms to teach them in person so that they have regular human contact. Children in YOIs are also given time in the open air, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, and access to healthcare, physical education and legal advice, even when they are removed from association.
Individual regime plans designed around the child’s needs are agreed and reviewed frequently for each child by a multidisciplinary team. Staff in all under-18 YOIs have been given additional training on the use of segregation or removal from association, on the rules governing it and on how to ensure they comply with them. The use of segregation is heavily monitored by the youth custody service and the independent monitoring board, and indeed by me through my regular meetings with the chief executive of the service.
I am absolutely clear that the safety and wellbeing of the children and young adults in our care must be our highest priority, and I am committed to delivering wide-ranging reform to ensure that we are able to meet that priority in an increasingly challenging environment. The shadow Minister suggested that we needed a review of how youth justice, or youth custody, is conducted. I point him to the review conducted a few years ago by Charlie Taylor, which did exactly that. That review set out for us the direction of travel, which we are pursuing with the new secure schools programme, for example. I will touch on that before I conclude.
To provide some context, as hon. Members stated, there has been a sustained fall in the number of children entering the youth justice system in recent years. In the decade to 2018, juvenile cautions decreased by 91%, the number of first-time entrants into the youth justice system reduced by 86%, and, importantly in the context of this debate, the number of children in custody fell by 70%. The latest official statistics I have indicate that there were only 812 children in the youth secure estate as of January this year, a significant reduction from the almost 3,500 to 4,000 around a decade ago.
Those figures represent significant successes and are a testament both to the work and dedication of those who serve our youth justice sector in all capacities, and to the determination on both sides of the House to focus on rehabilitation and give young people the opportunity to reform and live a productive and successful life rather than being condemned at an early age to a life of going in and out of prison. However, that overall decline has resulted in a concentration in the youth secure estate of children who are convicted of the most serious offences—those who pass the bar above which custody is deemed the last resort for someone under 18 and demonstrate very complex behaviour.
The shadow Minister and others referred to the report by the Children’s Commissioner. We studied that carefully, but we challenged a number of her assertions, as I did openly at the JCHR. There are several reasons behind our challenge. The first is the change in the nature of data collection in the period that she looked at. That is not the only reason why we have seen the number of incidents we have, but we need to be careful about the data. Previously, if a young person was segregated in their own cell, it was not recorded as a segregation; a segregation was reported only if they went to a segregation unit or wing. It is important that we have clear data on any segregation or removal from association. That is one factor. It is not the only one, but it is a factor, so I just sound a slight note of caution there.
The other reason goes back to that really concentrated cohort of people convicted of the most serious offences. The average number of children held for violence against the person has increased by 11% in the last year. The proportion of children in custody for more serious offences, including violence against the person, robbery and sexual offences, has increased from 59% to 70% over the last five years. That is due to the increase in violence against the person offences, which now account for 41% of the youth custody population. The changing mix of offenders who make up that smaller overall number plays a part in both the rising levels of violence and the challenges faced by our youth custody estate.
Furthermore, as I think the shadow Minister touched on, despite the reduction in overall numbers, there has been an increase in the proportion of children from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community in custody. They currently make up around 45% of the custodial population. I am deeply concerned about the proportion of BAME children in custody, and understanding and addressing that is a key priority for me. Since my appointment, I have had the great pleasure of working with the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on implementation of the Lammy review. We have created a dedicated youth justice disproportionality team, which is working with stakeholders and criminal justice agencies to follow the principles we set out in response to the review, either to explain clearly why this is the case or to change the way the system works to ensure that there is not unwarranted disproportionality of outcomes for BAME children.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is absolutely right about the importance of not giving up on anyone, however challenging they are. Young people in custody are some of the most challenging people in our society, for a variety of reasons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said. People may be challenging for mental health reasons or as a result of substance misuse. Often, people are challenging because they come from a background in which they experienced significant adverse childhood experiences or trauma, family breakup or domestic violence. There is a whole range of factors behind that. Where the severity of a crime justifies and requires a custodial sentence, our judiciary must have the power to impose one, but we should not give up on any of those young people, and we should work with them in custody to try to address the challenges and background issues they face.
John Howell
One of the other times children are at risk is when their parents are in prison. We at the Council of Europe have been very keen to ensure that there is very good treatment for that. Has the Minister come across that?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that factor. I have seen in my work on the female offender strategy the impact that a mother going to prison can have on a young person. It can put them at greater risk of offending or of becoming a victim of crime. I am not aware of the specific work by the Council of Europe, but I know that my hon. Friend is not only an extremely active and valuable participant in the Council of Europe but a strong advocate for its work, so I suspect that he will collar me outside the Chamber and raise with me the research and work it has done that I should consider carefully.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe that every child and young person in custody should have access to and be engaged in meaningful activities, including education and physical activities. The regime should be purposeful, meet the needs of the individuals, keep children occupied and active all day, and deliver the highest quality of education. That is why we have provided an additional £1.8 million of education funding for our YOIs in this financial year, and we are looking at the next iteration of the contracts for the provision of those services.
I am a particularly strong believer—even if my physique does not necessarily demonstrate it—in the benefits that sport and physical activity can bring, particularly in custody. As well as the obvious health benefits, they can provide children and young adults with a sense of achievement, discipline and purpose, and enhance their self-esteem, allowing them to take steps to transform their lives. That is why we are supporting organisations that want to work with children in the justice system and developing new partnerships between establishments, sports clubs and providers to increase access to such activities for those in custody. Members may well be aware of the twinning project that was launched last year to pair prisons with football clubs to deliver new coaching qualifications—33 premier league clubs are now signed up to that—and of the parkrun partnership, which currently operates in 11 prisons across the country, including Feltham, and is expanding.
As I said, engaging activities need to sit alongside effective behaviour management so that children can be out of their rooms and able safely to participate in the regimes and activities provided. That is why we have developed a new approach to behaviour management. Our new behaviour management framework for the youth estate, “Building Bridges”, which was published in February and began its implementation yesterday, draws on research and best practice across our establishments and those of related sectors. It introduces a range of requirements designed to create the right conditions to encourage positive behaviour and proactive, positive cultures, and sets high-level expectations for supporting positive behaviour across all sectors of the youth estate. That will sit alongside a conflict resolution strategy, applying restorative justice principles, and the custody support plan, which will provide each child with a personal officer to work with on a weekly basis in order to build trust and consistency.
I have been encouraged by the progress made by these safety initiatives so far, but there is no room at all for complacency, as both the recent report on youth custody by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the latest HMIP “Children in Custody” annual report, which the shadow Minister alluded to, have made clear. There is more work to do to ensure that youth custody is a safe and effective place for children to turn their lives around.
The HMIP report highlighted the disproportionate use of restraint and segregation in youth custody for BAME children in particular, so we have identified that as a priority area, within our wider strategy, to address race disparities within the criminal justice system. The IICSA report made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening safeguarding arrangements for children in custody. Despite its shocking findings, we are grateful to IICSA for highlighting those issues. I have written to the inquiry’s chair, Professor Jay, to confirm that we will respond as soon as we are in a position to do so.
More broadly—I come to my penultimate point—we are underpinning all of these reforms with investment in our workforce. The shadow Minister has raised that issue not just in relation to our youth estate but more broadly; I know that he takes a close interest in it. Since October 2016, we have increased the size of our frontline workforce across the prison service by more than 4,700 officers to relieve day-to-day pressures and enable the delivery of more proactive, positive initiatives such as those I have mentioned and the key worker scheme in the adult estate. But we do not only need more staff; we must invest in their training and development to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to meet the complex needs of those in custody. That is why I was pleased to see that the Prison Officers Association endorsed our reform proposals for the youth custody workforce last week.
We are introducing a new youth justice specialist role and funding all of our youth custody prison officers to undertake a foundation degree in youth justice and transition to that new role on promotion and at a higher pay grade. The training and duties of the role will allow staff to engage with the root causes of children’s offending and more effectively build positive and proactive relationships. More than 300 frontline staff have already voluntarily entered into the qualification, and I look forward to welcoming the first specialists on to the wings in the coming months.
It is crucial that the workforce in the custodial estate are as representative as possible of the group of children they serve. Following the Lammy review, HMPPS made a commitment that at least 14% of new recruits would come from BAME backgrounds by December 2020. I am pleased with the progress we are making in this area; between January 2017 and December 2018 18.5% of the formal offers that were accepted for recruitment to the YCS were from BAME candidates.
Finally, as I said, we continue to work on our proposal to develop secure schools, which we believe are the transformational step in a new approach to youth custody. At present we have prisons with an educational element. What we seek with the reform, and the first secure school planned for Medway, is to reverse that presumption and create instead a school with security, with the education and progress of the young person at the heart of the vision.
I am under no illusions about the challenge we face. We are talking about children who display the most challenging needs and behaviours, and considerable vulnerabilities. Our reforms will support establishments to provide better levels of care, help meet young people’s needs and reduce the likelihood of the need to use separation. If it would be helpful, I am happy to meet the hon. Lady separately outside the Chamber to discuss the education screening, education work and mental health issues raised.
Ultimately, like all of us here, the Government wish to see a change in our system, with fewer young people entering it in the first place and, for those who do, a clear focus on rehabilitation and reducing the risk of reoffending, giving those young people a better chance at life. We want to see more children safer and happier, spending more time engaging in purposeful and constructive activities with a greater hope of a meaningful and crime-free future. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), and the Minister for their contributions. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Henley about the need to look at the risk assessments for isolation, ensure that they are routine and enforced, and to keep monitoring that closely.
I welcome many of the points that the Minister made, including his reluctance about the idea of having children in prison. He said it was a sign that society had failed. I totally accept his point about the concentrated cohort with extremely complex needs. I welcome his offer to talk to me on the education side and to look again at investing money further upstream, because the figures that the hon. Member for Henley highlighted relating to children with communication difficulties, children with ADHD and children who are autistic ending up in our prison service are shocking.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we need to look at staff experience and staff ratios to see why so many more children are being isolated, because only so much can be explained by their having special needs and disabilities, or undiagnosed needs. Perhaps we need to look at having more staff trained in mental health in our youth service, or specialists who know how to address and work with these young people. We also need a more joined-up approach with education and social services to prevent children from ending up in prison.
I thank the hon. Member for Henley for contributing, as well as the shadow Minister and the Minister. I hope that we will continue to have this conversation as we do not give up on any child. I hope that they can eventually become productive members of society again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered youth inmates in solitary confinement.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting will be suspended until 4 o’clock. If a Division is called during that time, we will meet back here as soon after the vote as the mover of the motion and the Minister can make it.
Pancreatic Cancer
(5 years, 8 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
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered treatment for pancreatic cancer.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who was an outstanding Health Minister and who I am sure will continue to make significant contributions to the fight against cancer. I thank members of the all-party parliamentary group on pancreatic cancer and associated charities for their work, and people watching on the Parliament channel for their interest and support.
It is time to up our game on the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Full marks to campaigners such as Ali Stunt of Pancreatic Cancer Action, who was inspired after surviving the cancer herself to set up a charity that focuses on improving early diagnosis in particular. We need even more people like Ali, with her determination and passion, to ensure we can make a difference. Once diagnosed, there is an urgent need for access to faster treatment for people who have pancreatic cancer.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend for ensuring that this issue is brought to the attention of the House. Does he agree that, while there is a great emphasis on early identification of pancreatic cancer and we all share the concern that identification should come as early as possible, the speed of treatment is every bit as important? Does he agree that we have some way to go before we can be satisfied with that speed of treatment for most patients with pancreatic cancer in this country?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is right: speed of treatment after diagnosis is an issue, and I will emphasise that in my speech.
Pancreatic cancer is the quickest-killing cancer: only one in four people survive a year and fewer than 7% of those affected in England will survive for five years or more. Those are appalling statistics, and they have not improved in this country in decades.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who has been a spokesman for pancreatic cancer treatment and many other things in this House. I always look to him personally for his lead in these things. In the background reading I did before the debate, I saw that the latest findings showed that overweight 50-year-olds have a 25% higher chance of having pancreatic cancer. I never knew that before. That not only shows the need for people to be aware of how their weight affects their long-term health, but is a red flag that the number of pancreatic cancer patients could rise. If being overweight can lead to pancreatic cancer, we must ensure that appropriate treatment is available for that rising number,.
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right; the more we learn about this disease, the more we can try to do things to prevent it and to support people so that they can get early diagnosis and treatment. The chances of survival for Kevin, the husband of my constituent Maggie Watts, were no better than those of his mother, who died of the same disease 40 years earlier. Yet other countries are doing much better; Belgium and the USA have double the survival rates of the UK. We need the Government to work with the fantastic pancreatic cancer charities—Pancreatic Cancer UK, Pancreatic Cancer Action, Pancreatic Cancer Scotland and the Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund—as well as other stakeholders to deliver a step change in outcomes for pancreatic cancer.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Sadly, in January my former caseworker died of pancreatic cancer, so I saw the sudden impact of the condition and how quickly it can affect people, as the hon. Gentleman has eloquently set out, as well as the poor survival rates. What particular lessons does he think this country can learn from Belgium, the United States and other countries where outcomes and survival rates are better?
Nic Dakin
I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on blood cancers in particular, and other cancer awareness issues such as this. He is right that we must learn the lessons from elsewhere, and hopefully I can demonstrate that there are things we can do to help us to catch up, once the diagnosis is in place, and get faster treatment.
One of the things that frustrates campaigners such as Maggie is the danger of accepting that little can be done after a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. There is a sense of nihilism about this disease. Maggie’s optimistic initiative in response to her situation is called “Hope is Contagious”, and it should energise us all to redouble our efforts. No one should be written off.
Paul Kenny is a pancreatic cancer sufferer who has contacted me on Twitter, saying he has a “slim chance” of seeing his next birthday, but adding:
“Hopefully future generations of sufferers will be prevented or given better prognoses.”
Paul is right—we can do so much better, and we must.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech that will resonate with many people, including my own family. My lovely mother-in-law, Jean Buck, had stomach pains and was misdiagnosed with pancreatitis. She was sent home from hospital on a diet of bread and water. When back in hospital, she suffered a heart attack and slipped into a coma. Only then did the hospital suspect pancreatic cancer, but it was too late to operate, because she needed to breathe unaided and sadly she could not. That left my father-in-law, Maurice, my husband and his brother and sister with the heartbreaking decision of whether to end her life support—a decision that will haunt their grief forever. Does my hon. Friend agree that earlier diagnosis is key not only for those who are suffering, but for those left behind?
Nic Dakin
I thank my hon. Friend: in sharing that personal story, she makes a powerful argument about the need for better early diagnosis. Sadly, the story that she tells is the familiar one of undiagnosed general symptoms eventually, in an emergency, being diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Very often, it is then too late to take action to address the illness. However, I want to focus on the fact that when we do diagnose early, we need to act early to cure people, because that is an area where we can certainly up our game.
At the moment, only one in 10 pancreatic cancer patients receives potentially curative surgery and only two in 10 receive chemotherapy, meaning that a massive seven in 10 people receive no treatment at all. That has to change. Last month, I delivered to the House a petition signed by an incredible 100,600 people supporting Pancreatic Cancer UK’s campaign to “Demand Faster Treatment”. They are asking for pancreatic cancer to be recognised as a cancer emergency and for people to be able to access treatment within 20 days of diagnosis in order to have the best chance of survival.
That ask is based on the latest evidence and best practice from existing fast-track models for operable and inoperable patients. Those models show that treating people with pancreatic cancer within 20 days increases the number accessing surgery by 20% and the number accessing chemotherapy by 25%. Those are significant improvements. Fast-track surgery will allow more people to access life-saving treatment, and we know that the survival rate is 10 times higher for those receiving surgery. The 100,600 people who signed the petition believe that those models should be the basis of a national optimal pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer to ensure that people with the disease can be treated within 20 days.
I want to be clear that I am not talking here about early diagnosis, important though that is—hon. Members’ interventions have underlined that—and I welcome the focus of the Government and NHS England on early diagnosis of all cancers. That can only be a good thing and it will help. However, there are currently many people with pancreatic cancer who have been diagnosed early enough to receive treatment but, unacceptably, do not receive it. That is the issue that I am focusing on today.
For example, more than half of people with stage 1 and stage 2 pancreatic cancer die within a year, and almost half of them, 42%, do not receive any active treatment at all—neither surgery nor chemotherapy. The data suggests that those patients are not prioritised and have not been treated as an emergency. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that the Government’s current and proposed waiting times are not fast enough for people with pancreatic cancer. A one-size-fits-all approach is not improving, and will not improve, survival rates for pancreatic cancer.
It was disappointing that the recently published interim report of the clinically-led review of NHS access standards did not take the opportunity to propose a differentiated target for pancreatic cancer. If we really want to transform outcomes, it is high time that we had differentiated targets, including a 20-day treatment target for pancreatic cancer.
Behind the statistics are real people. We have heard about some of them today, and their stories help us truly understand the missed opportunities and devastating consequences of the current system. No one did more to mobilise people to sign the petition and help make the case for faster treatment than Erika Vincent. In February 2018, Erika was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, yet despite its advanced nature, she was made to wait two months for treatment—something that she described as psychological torture for her and her family. While she waited, her cancer spread, bringing her more pain and complicating the care that she would eventually receive. Erika believed that the delays to her treatment reduced the time she had left with her family. She chose to spend much of that time championing the need to treat pancreatic cancer as an emergency, believing, as I do, that pancreatic cancer patients cannot afford to wait. Sadly, Erika passed away just weeks before the petition calling for faster treatment—a petition that she had done so much to assemble and put together as part of a campaign—was presented to the House.
Erika’s story stands in stark contrast to that of Liz Oakley. When Liz was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in January last year, it took just 12 days for her to be scheduled for surgery—the only cure for pancreatic cancer. Liz had already survived breast cancer twice. She is both a testimony to the remarkable progress that has been made in the treatment of other cancers and living proof of what is possible for patients with pancreatic cancer.
There is a compelling case for treating pancreatic cancer as a cancer emergency and for creating optimal fast-track pathways. Far too many people have been lost to this disease too early. For far too long, pancreatic cancer has been forgotten, neglected, written off. The Government can commit today to changing that. Will the Government look at developing optimal pancreatic cancer pathways? Will they evaluate rolling out fast-track surgery models across England? Will they commit to the ambition of allowing people with pancreatic cancer to access treatment within 20 days of diagnosis by 2024?
Thankfully, we have seen huge changes for other cancers. Lung cancer is a good example. Back in 2005, the national lung cancer audit showed that patients with operable lung cancer were not referred for surgery, and it was shown that the surgery rate could be tripled in a cancer network within one year. Between 1985 and 2005, there were just 3,000 operations a year; that increased to 7,250 in 2016. That is inspirational. It shows what we can do. It shows what we can achieve when a cancer is treated as a cancer emergency, as pancreatic cancer must be now. Hope is contagious. Let us make it happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for the articulate and passionate way in which he made his case. He has a long history of campaigning on this issue, and long may he continue. We know that we need a conscience when it comes to driving improvements throughout the health system, and it is always instructive to hear people’s experiences. I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work that he does in chairing the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer and on pancreatic cancer.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing the stories of Ali Stunt, Maggie Watts and Erika Vincent, because we need to remember that we are not talking about some vague disease that happens to other people; it happens to real human beings and their lives are incredibly affected by our failure, or otherwise, to take action in these spheres. They also inspire us. The fact that Erika Vincent dedicated so much of her final days to raising awareness is inspirational, and we would be very poor if we did not take action following that.
I also thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for sharing her family story. Again, she illustrated that this can happen to any one of us. When we are in a position to do something about it, we must act.
No one will be surprised that tackling cancer is a major priority for the Government. We have presided over year-on-year increases in survival rates, so that today they are at the highest levels recorded. However, we should not rest on our laurels and be complacent. That is good progress, but we must do better—our ambition is to do better.
Last October, the Prime Minister announced a package of measures with the aim of detecting three quarters of all cancers at stages 1 or 2 by 2028. These measures will see improvements to our screening programmes and new investment in state of the art technology, to further improve diagnosis and boost long-term research and innovation.
That represents the cancer element of the NHS long-term plan, published in January, which sets out how we will achieve our ambition of 55,000 more people surviving cancer for five years in each year from 2028. Colleagues will be aware that the Secretary of State is placing considerable emphasis on prevention, so we need to look at what else we are doing, in terms of screening and research, to tackle these issues. All of that is to be commended, but we must not be complacent. We can learn from the examples of Belgium and the USA, where much greater advances have been made.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe reminds us all that survival rates for certain cancers remain stubbornly low, including for pancreatic cancer, which is the least survivable of all cancers and so merits special attention. As he alluded to, late diagnosis is a key reason for that. We know that less than a quarter of people have their cancer diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared to half of people for all other cancers.
The new early diagnosis ambition represents a huge opportunity to change that for three reasons. First, the ambition must apply to all stageable cancers, including pancreatic cancer. NHS England is working with Pancreatic Cancer UK and others on how we can adjust the current national measure of early diagnosis to include pancreatic cancer for the first time.
Secondly, within that headline measure, the Government are committed to publishing regular data on individual cancers. We need to be transparent about how we are performing in this area, so that we can identify which cancers we are tackling in terms of early diagnosis, and which need more attention. That will provide a powerful catalyst for all the charities to come together and work with NHS England to deliver that change.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Indeed. I will come to that point, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me.
I would like to highlight the other unsurvivable cancers that suffer from late diagnosis, which, as well as pancreatic cancer, include cancer of the stomach and oesophagus. We must ensure that we also focus on those cancers.
The focus of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was that pancreatic cancer should be treated as a cancer emergency. Pancreatic Cancer UK’s recent demand for faster treatment set the ambition to treat pancreatic cancer within 20 days from diagnosis by 2024. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Liz Oakley. The fact that she had treatment within 12 days shows that it can be done. We should embrace that level of ambition. While we recognise that great achievement and advance, we should ensure that that is the experience across our national health service.
What I will say does not quite meet the hon. Gentleman’s request, but I think he will welcome the direction of travel. NHS England will shortly be introducing a faster diagnostic standard of 28 days for all cancer patients, including those with pancreatic cancer. That will mean that every patient can expect a definitive diagnosis—yes or no—within 28 days. Taken together with the 62-day referral to treatment standard, all patients should expect to start their treatment within 34 days of diagnosis.
I know that is not quite the target that the hon. Gentleman set me, but if we can ensure the whole system works to that efficiency, we will make great strides in tackling this. I cannot emphasise enough that we should never lack ambition in how far we are prepared to drive improvements. That standard of treatment within 34 days is the maximum, but I expect trusts always to treat patients according to clinical need and to prioritise those needing urgent treatment, such as Liz Oakley, who received treatment within 12 days.
We welcome Pancreatic Cancer UK and all other stakeholders working with the pancreatic cancer clinical community to develop practices to shorten the time before treatment even further. It is important that we continue that dialogue, not just to be reactive, but to build confidence, because poor survival rates are well understood. We do not want people to be diagnosed and automatically think that there is no hope. There is always hope, and our NHS services must ensure that people understand that.
NHS services for pancreatic cancer have improved significantly in recent years. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman accepted that. In the spirit of demanding more, it is always good to look at how far we have come. I thank him for that. There are now clearer diagnostic pathways. Decision making is done by specialist multi-disciplinary teams.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I will try to remember where I left off.
Obviously, cancer treatment plays a big part in our long-term plan for the next 10 years, which sets out positive developments at every stage of the pancreatic cancer pathway. Clearly, we need to look at issues such as prevention, as we have mentioned, but the plan also signals a shift towards more risk-based approaches to screening. We will begin to test family members of cancer patients where they are at increased risk. Data suggests that 10% of pancreatic cancer cases are inherited, so screening can be a big tool with which to combat the disease.
Primary care networks will play an important new role in supporting GPs to build on the doubling in referral volumes that we have seen since 2010. Rapid diagnostic centres will provide a new referral route for patients, particularly those who go to their GP with vague symptoms, and will ensure that they get checked out quickly and accurately. From next year, many more newly diagnosed cancer patients will be offered genomic testing to help to inform their treatment planning. We will continue to invest in safer and more precise treatments, including immunotherapies, to improve survival rates. We are completing a massive upgrade of radiotherapy services across England, which will increase the support that patients can access. Finally, the plan reaffirms our commitment that every person diagnosed with cancer will have access to personalised care, including a needs assessment, a care plan and health and wellbeing support.
I will quickly say something about research. In 2017, Pancreatic Cancer UK and four other charities launched the less survivable cancers taskforce, which represents all cancers with stubbornly poor survival rates and calls for improvements in research. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) spoke at the taskforce’s launch and put the Government’s full support behind it. Research into innovative medicines and treatments is extremely important. We accept that there is an unacceptable research funding gap, with less survivable cancers receiving five times less research funding than more survivable cancers, which we need to address. Cancer Research UK has prioritised increasing research into hard-to-treat cancers, including pancreatic cancer, but more needs to be done.
In closing, I reiterate that, as a Government, we have made considerable progress, but there is much more to be done. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe and all hon. Members who have taken an interest in the debate. I know that they will hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that we carry on making real improvements in treating and supporting people with pancreatic cancer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered treatment for pancreatic cancer.
Puppy Smuggling
(5 years, 8 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
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of puppy smuggling.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the debate. I extend my thanks to the many organisations and bodies that have been campaigning on the issue for a long time, not least the Dogs Trust. It has one of the country’s largest rehoming centres in my constituency and it is a pleasure to work with it.
This is the second time that I have introduced a debate on the topic, and I am pleased to be joined again by hon. Members from across the House. That is hardly surprising, given that there are 9 million dogs in the UK—probably more; we do not know exactly—and many more dog lovers. I also have here a book that contains the pledges of 137 Members of Parliament who are committed to stopping puppy smuggling. I hope that that conveys to the Minister how deeply concerned we are about puppy smuggling. I am not the only person in the House who has concerns about the issue being raised by a significant number of our constituents.
In the previous debate on the topic, I told the Chamber that puppy smuggling was a multimillion-pound underground—
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. There is no Minister present. Is that in order?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Thank you for pointing that out. It is not in order for the Minister not to be present. In the circumstances, we will suspend the sitting until he arrives and allow Mr Huddleston to start his speech again then.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The sitting is resumed and I invite Mr Huddleston to restart his speech.
Nigel Huddleston
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of puppy smuggling.
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate today. I also extend my thanks to the many organisations and bodies that have campaigned on this issue for many years, in particular the Dogs Trust, which has one of the country’s largest rehoming centres in my constituency. It is a pleasure to work with it.
This is the second time that I have secured a debate on this topic, and I am pleased to be joined again by so many colleagues of different parties from across the House. That is not surprising, as there are 9 million dogs in the UK and many more dog lovers.
I also have with me today a book containing the pledges of more than 137 MPs, and I think more MPs will be signing today, showing that they are committed to stopping puppy smuggling. I hope that that conveys to the Minister, just how deeply concerned we are about puppy smuggling, and I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament who will say that this issue is also of great concern to my constituents.
In the previous debate that I secured on this subject, I told the House how puppy smuggling was a multi-million pound industry—an illegal trade. Hundreds of puppies are intercepted at our ports and borders each and every year. I will come on to some of the issues surrounding security at our borders a little later, but it is likely that thousands more puppies slip through the net and remain unidentified.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and also for securing this really important debate. He talked about measures being put in place at the borders. However, does he agree that it is not only important for us to put measures in place in the UK but that we need international co-operation as well, to stamp out this horrendous practice?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come to some of the recommendations later on. Although much of the focus of my recommendations will be on what the UK Government can do, we also need to lobby internationally to ensure that there is fair treatment and awareness across countries.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
On that specific point, there is a particular issue with the Irish border; it is estimated that about 30,000 puppies cross it every year. So, although we can secure the borders of the United Kingdom, we also need to co-operate with other countries, including the Republic of Ireland, to see what can be done to ensure that the likes of that land border, which is very difficult to put checks along, can still have checks in operation, and it is also particularly important to have checks at ports in the Republic of Ireland as well.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady is making another very important point. Of course, there are particular sensitivities around the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland that we are all aware of. Her point is very important, and it deserves very careful consideration, so I thank her again for raising it.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that unscrupulous dealers are now taking advantage of the pet travel scheme and that that scheme needs to end after Brexit?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; indeed, I am just about to come on to it. I think we are suffering from the unintended consequences of some changes in schemes and programmes.
Of course, puppy smuggling at heart is an industry perpetrated by people who are motivated purely by money. They can make up to an incredible £35,000 per week by illegally transporting puppies through our borders, to be sold to unsuspecting dog lovers in the UK. The root cause of puppy smuggling seems, indeed, to be the ease with which gangs can abuse the pet travel scheme that operates across Europe, which is otherwise known as PETS.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he rightly identifies the large sums of money that can be made either by individuals or by organised crime gangs. These criminals appear to make a very fine cost-benefit calculation, which reinforces the need, expressed by a number of animal charities, to increase the penalties for maltreating animals. There should also be confiscation of vehicles, so that this business is no longer a paying business.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Indeed, many and various recommendations have come out of this debate, and of course disincentivising this really despicable trade in every way we can is very important. Penalties, fixed fines and indeed criminal sanctions are, of course, the things that we all need to consider.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is it not also the case that as well as increasing penalties, which I strongly agree with, it is important that those penalties are available against a wide range of offences? There has been some argument that the specified offences in the current draft of the Act are not wide enough to cover all the offences that will be committed in the process of smuggling puppies.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point; I am sure that the Minister is listening to it and to other points, and will respond to them. As I have said, there are many things we need to focus on. Of course, changes in the law are being considered. For example, the animal cruelty sentences will not just be specifically for puppy smuggling; they will cover a wider range of offences, and we need to make sure that the range is as broad as possible.
I had said that there were some unintended consequences to PETS. In an effort to harmonise travel between European countries, PETS was relaxed in 2012. Among the changes were the removal of the requirement for a puppy to have had a rabies blood test and a lowering of the minimum age for travel from 10 months to just 15 weeks. Since the relaxation of the PETS rules, there has been a considerable rise in the number of puppies entering the UK. In 2011, just 85,000 puppies legally entered Great Britain, but by 2017 that figure had more than trebled.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing his second debate on this vital issue. My constituency is home to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which is incredibly concerned about this particular issue. Does he agree that, rather than a reduction in the market, there needs to be a wholesale ban on the smuggling of all puppies?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; indeed, I also pay tribute to the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home for what it has done. And she makes a very valid point. All of these options need to be carefully considered.
Hundreds of puppies are intercepted at our ports each year, and although we cannot accurately assess the scale of the puppy smuggling trade—it is, after all, illegal and therefore difficult to assess fully—it is likely that the true number of puppies being smuggled into the UK reaches into the thousands and not just the hundreds.
The most recent report into puppy smuggling by the Dogs Trust has also uncovered an alarming new trend of puppies from non-EU countries, such as Serbia, being taken to EU member states, given fraudulent EU pet passports and then smuggled to the UK from there.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently spoke to a constituent who had driven 200 miles to pick up a French bulldog puppy. It was meant to be the perfect family pet, but after its first check it emerged that it had both heart and kidney problems, as a result of bad breeding practices at what turned out to be a puppy-farming operation. I wholeheartedly support the hon. Gentleman’s call for better regulation of puppies entering the UK.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and I will be coming on to that issue in a moment.
Through good will and because they want to enjoy and care for an animal, families are sometimes led into doing something that is not appropriate for the animal. The animals’ circumstances can be horrible and they are not always in a great condition, which is extremely alarming.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I know that he is desperately trying not to mention the “B word” in this debate; I think we can all appreciate that. However, does he agree that one of the advantages of leaving the European Union will be that it will offer an opportunity to introduce far-reaching animal welfare regulations that go beyond the existing framework, including the reintroduction of tests for rabies?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; indeed, one of the recommendations that I will come to in a moment is to introduce a test for rabies. We cannot do so at the moment, because we are in the EU, but that is an opportunity that we could take once we have left the EU. I also thank her for raising the “B word”.
Puppies should be at least seven months old before travelling to an EU member state from a third country, but the Dogs Trust found that in Serbia puppies as young as 10 weeks were given fake documentation, so that they could gain entry to the UK.
It is worth reflecting on the truly awful conditions that some of these poor animals have to endure. To evade detection, puppies are sometimes squashed into the hollow of backseats or covered in blankets and bundled under a front seat. They are often sedated to prevent them from making any noise or moving around. The Dogs Trust has told me that it has intercepted at the border puppies that have been given such heavy doses of sedative that it has taken them several days to come to. Travelling to the UK by car from countries such as Lithuania, Latvia and Serbia can take up to 30 hours, during which time puppies are given no toilet breaks, no time to exercise and very little, if any, food and water.
One case that exemplifies just how awful the trade is, is that of Lola, a French bulldog who was transported hundreds of miles from Lithuania, with temperatures in the van she was smuggled in reaching more than 40° C. She was heavily pregnant and it is illegal for a travelling pet to be pregnant. Shortly after being taken in by the Dogs Trust, she gave birth to four puppies, but it was such a difficult birth and she had been through such a traumatic experience that two of them were stillborn.
Lola has since had a number of health issues, ranging from infections to respiratory diseases, with some requiring surgery, but the Dogs Trust has managed to arrange treatment and she has been successfully rehomed. However, had Lola not been detected at the border, she and her puppies would have been advertised online and sold to an unsuspecting family who had no knowledge of the state of their health. Imagine someone bringing a new puppy home to their family, to very excited children, only to discover that it was unwell, possibly diseased and requiring treatment that could cost thousands of pounds.
The trauma of the journeys these puppies are forced to endure often leads them to develop behavioural issues and some, unfortunately, do not recover from their health issues and end up being put down. After rescuing 39 puppies from one commercial dealer, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals found that six needed to be put down immediately and two thirds had congenital defects. The RSPCA has also cited an investigation that found that about 20% of puppies bought on the internet died within six months.
What can be done to put an end to this trade? There have been many suggestions and, as has been mentioned, some of the changes can be made once we have left the EU. I wish to acknowledge and show my appreciation for the fact that the Government take animal safety and welfare seriously—for example, all the work that they have done on the banning of ivory sales and third-party sales of puppies. But they could, and should, go further. For instance, I urge them to bring before Parliament as soon as possible the already promised increase to five years of the maximum sentence for animal cruelty. That would apply to puppy smuggling.
I also ask the Government to consider introducing on-the-spot fines for those caught illegally importing dogs, and I encourage them to improve the presence of border officials at our ports, to carry out more visual checks at all hours of the day, every day of the week. The current disparity in the border presence between office hours and weekend and evening slots can all too easily be exploited by smugglers.
Post-Brexit, the Government could reintroduce a requirement for dogs to have a rabies blood test and set a restriction on how soon after the test they could travel. That could increase the age at which dogs could legally enter the country to six months, say. The benefits of that in tackling puppy smuggling are twofold: it is much easier for officials to assess accurately the age of puppies once they have reached six months, and the incentive to smuggle puppies in the first place would be reduced because they are less desirable to the public once they are that bit older.
I know that the Minister is familiar with the issues we have raised; he and I have had many conversations in the past. Colleagues wish to bring up many other points, so I will finish my speech. I know that the Minister will listen carefully, and I look forward to his response.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 5.40 pm. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 5.17 pm, and the guideline limits are five minutes for the SNP, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister, and then Nigel Huddleston will have a few minutes to sum up the debate. Until 5.17 pm, it is Back-Bench time, and nine Members are seeking to contribute. I want everyone to be able to do so, so I am afraid there will have to be a time limit of two and a half minutes to ensure that everyone can get in.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on calling this very important debate. I will not go through the detail he laid before us.
It is clear that puppy smuggling is a problem that has grown significantly in the past few years. Let us be clear that the pet travel scheme—PETS—has been a great boon to many pet owners, enabling them to take their much-loved pets around the continent without the need for quarantine. I think there is broad consensus that the 2012 relaxation and harmonisation of the rules governing the scheme made it even easier to take pets across borders. However, in a country such as the UK, where for many years demand for puppies has outstripped supply, that was always going to increase the risk of smuggling activity on the part of unscrupulous dealers ready to make cheap money out of a grossly unethical and cruel trade.
Illegal puppy smuggling involves poor breeding practices and sometimes appalling conditions, with many of the puppies suffering disease. The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire laid out the detail on that very well. Many puppies are not properly vaccinated and false certification of the animals as they are sold on to unsuspecting individuals here in the UK is a key part of the illegal trade.
If we are serious about animal welfare and committed to preventing the suffering of such animals, immediate action is needed to improve enforcement of the pet travel scheme. It is clear that we need tougher penalties for those caught illegally importing dogs. We have waited a long time for the Bill that would allow for five-year sentences for animal cruelty offences and my key question to the Minister is: when will we see that Bill? If the Government do not publish it and have its First Reading, they should let a Member do it via a private Member’s Bill. We can do it quickly—in a day—if we have the will. The focus on enforcement must also be shifted away from the ferry companies and Eurotunnel to Government agencies, with visual checks of dogs entering the country.
I will leave it at that. I do not have much time and others want to speak. I want to hear the Minister’s view, particularly on those animal cruelty sentencing powers.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I care a great deal about this issue, as do many of my constituents. I am a dog lover, and the proud owner of two rescue dogs, Phoebe and Herbie, who give me such joy. I want to speak about this matter and, like the many constituents who have written to me, to call for more action.
Our exit from the EU affords us an opportunity to improve on what is already a good regime. I am delighted that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), has secured this debate and laid out in his comments all the actions that need to be taken. I do not, therefore, need to add much more, but will just touch on some brief points.
Three areas need to be looked at: our efforts at the border; our internal regulations; and the international engagement we pursue. As hon. Members have mentioned, central and eastern European countries—Hungary, Poland and Romania in particular—most often provide the supply of puppies, which feeds a growing demand for fashionable dogs. Given the rise in the demand for fighting dogs too, other nations are becoming involved, including the USA; it is worth noting that some 13 American bulldogs have been intercepted at the border in the past year. However, the issue is predominantly a European one, and the EU pet travel scheme is routinely abused, allowing puppies to cross our borders to feed the growing demand. Forged documents, corrupt vets and an absence of border checks in the Schengen area all contribute to that environment.
Although we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe or this problem behind, so we have to keep working with the states that are most heavily involved. Lithuania, for example, has introduced legislation that means that pet passports can be issued only by a vet from the state veterinary service. Figures from the Animal and Plant Health Agency show a huge reduction in the number of illegally landed dogs, from 106 in 2016 to just three in 2018. However, more countries need to act. Many countries are involved, and we need to co-operate with them all.
Many of the steps that have been outlined are not new, but they would bring the regulations back up to a more robust level and deter criminals from smuggling puppies into the UK. I pay tribute to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Dogs Trust. I was delighted to go with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire to Downing Street to present the petition, and I thank everyone for their efforts in clamping down on the trade.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) for securing it.
We know that puppy smuggling is increasing, but the scale of the problem is, by its nature, difficult to assess. Puppy smuggling now represents the third most frequent organised criminal activity to emerge from the RSPCA’s intelligence gathering, with only animal fighting and illegal hunting more frequent. The challenge is that the deterrents against that type of criminal behaviour are simply not robust enough: the fortunes that can be made far outweigh the punishments meted out, and that has to change. The real way to stop this barbaric trade is to enhance public awareness of the issue by highlighting the consequences of this vile illegal trade for dogs and for families.
The Dogs Trust and others have warned that damaging changes to the pet travel scheme in 2012 have resulted in an influx of puppies being illegally imported from central and eastern Europe into the UK for sale, with corrupt breeders abusing the system. Such mistakes must not be compounded inadvertently, but must be comprehensively addressed. An important aspect of tackling that abuse is cross-border co-operation with our European neighbours, and I hope—to mention the “B” word—that any form of Brexit, should it happen, does not prevent such co-operation between the UK and Europe. The European Parliament called last year for new resolutions to end the illegal trafficking of pets, and is working towards them. Whether we are in or out of Europe, we in the United Kingdom need to be part of those efforts.
I urge the Minister to work with our European partners to ensure that the microchipping of pets across the member states of the EU is more harmonised, as that would enable a more compatible database. We know that criminal gangs have taken advantage of the lack of harmonisation of ID, registration and database requirements to circumvent the pet travel scheme and use it as cover for the mass illegal smuggling of puppies. Harmonisation would strike a significant blow to the heart of this barbaric, illegal trade. We are nations of animal lovers, and we cannot delay any longer.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on introducing this debate, but we have discussed this issue so many times and now we need action. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), in that I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to do something about this issue.
I have had two rescued pugs—a difficult breed. At the moment, we have a French bulldog; my daughter has it at the weekends, and my wife and I have it during the week, so we have the best of both worlds. Of course, puppies are very cute, but looking after them is a huge responsibility.
As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire, an unintended consequence of the pet travel scheme and the relaxation of EU legislation has been an increase of smuggled puppies into the UK. It appears that those smugglers have easily been able to falsify pet passports and vaccine documentation, because enforcement at the borders is simply not good enough. It would be wonderful if my hon. Friend the Minister could explain how he and the Department intend to deal with the issues we face at those borders.
In 2012, when the rules were relaxed, the number of dogs entering the UK under PETS increased by 61%, and the age at which they could be imported was reduced from about 10 months to just 15 weeks. That has made it easier for smugglers to flout the rules and bring in unvaccinated puppies who are too young to travel.
As we have already heard, we are a nation of animal lovers; let us prove it. Through a simple Bill, we could change the way in which puppies are treated, and dealing with the wicked online behaviour of these crooks and criminals is key to that. We need to hear a strong message from the Minister.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Westminster Hall would not be complete without Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on having set the scene, and thank him for giving us a chance to speak on this issue. With a wife who is as dedicated to her volunteer work at Assisi as I am to this House, it is little wonder that I stand to speak today. I am also an animal lover, and a dog lover in particular, so I wanted to weigh in during this important debate. I thank the charities that work in this area, such as the RSCPA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust and Assisi, as well as the World Dog Alliance, which campaigns against dog meat as food; I look to the Minister to give a quick update about where we are on that issue, if he can. That charity has been very involved in educating people to be aware of exactly where their puppy has come from.
My parliamentary assistant recently bought a dog, and I will tell Members what she did, because it is what we should all be doing. She asked to see the mother and the father of the dog; she checked with a registered vet as to how many litters the mother had; she went to the home of the owners for a second visit to see mums and babies; and she asked for the papers of the parents. She was as thorough in doing that as she is in her work with me. She also told me that before I spoke in the last debate on puppy smuggling, she would never have done that. That is what we should all be doing, and that was a plus for her.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
This will probably be the fastest speech that you have heard, Mr Hollobone. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have heard a lot about puppy farming, but that if we were talking about cattle, horses or sheep, there would be a bigger noise about it and something would be done?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. That is the focus that we want to put into this debate.
Official figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show an increase in the number of dogs brought into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the first year, 2011, the number was 85,000; in the most recent year, 2016, the number was 275,000. If that does not disturb Members, it should. It is time that we made more people aware of what they could be getting, and how these little dogs come here.
I ask for four things. First, we should increase the maximum penalties for those caught illegally importing dogs, and introduce punitive fixed penalty notices. Secondly, we should shift the focus in enforcement of pet travel legislation away from the carriers—that is, the ferries and Eurotunnel. Thirdly, we should introduce a centrally accessible database to log pets’ microchip numbers and their date of entry into Great Britain. Fourthly, we need intelligence-led enforcement to identify dealers and traders who are regularly importing multiple puppies.
This is a matter for people in the street who care that the animal they bring into their homes to become a part of their family is an animal that has been cared for. I support making life impossible for those who are flouting the rules with no regard for welfare, and that is why I am here today to support the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire, as is everybody else present.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) for securing this debate, because it is good to keep our concentration on the issue of puppy smuggling. I am also delighted to see the Minister here; we are expecting great things from him, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said, it is time for action, not just words.
The statistics show that there are between 9 and 11 million dogs in the country. If a dog has an average life of 10 or 12 years, we can work out that we probably need somewhere between three quarters of a million and a million puppies every year. From the statistics on what we breed in this country and what is bred in Ireland, we know that there is a huge shortage of puppies, which is being filled by illegal gangs. It is relatively easy to falsify veterinary certificates and all sorts to get puppies through the border. When a person comes to the border, it is largely the paper trail that is checked, rather than someone looking into the vans and vehicles and finding where those puppies are. We need to be much stronger. It is not just about a paper trail; we have to actually get into the vans and find out what is happening.
I admire what the Dogs Trust has been doing. The evidence it has given the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shows that puppy smuggling is a real problem. Our Committee released its “Animal welfare in England: domestic pets” report back in 2016-17, and one of our recommendations was that the Government ban third-party puppy sales. At the time, the Government were not sure whether they wanted to do so, but since then the Secretary of State has looked into the issue and announced a ban. If we could bring that about, we would at least be able to work out exactly where puppies come from. They would be with their owners, and we would buy them from those owners and from proper breeders. It would be more difficult for people to smuggle puppies in and pretend that they have come from wherever. We will never stamp out all puppy smuggling, but we can stamp out a lot of it.
I ask the Minister to please take action, because this cannot go on. This is not only about the misery caused to individuals, but about diseases potentially being brought into the country. These puppies are far too young and not properly socialised, so I look forward to the Minister’s actions.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I was a member of his Committee for three years, and I spent a long time following him, so this is not a novel experience. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on having secured this debate.
Suffice it to say, the illegal transportation of puppies is a serious issue. Underage and unvaccinated animals are being smuggled from mainland Europe for sale in the UK, causing suffering to those puppies and endangering the health of animals here. Concerns about the illegal transportation of puppies include underage puppies being removed from their mothers too young and fears that some vets are falsifying data on pet passports for the pet travel scheme, including falsely declaring that puppies are more than eight weeks of age. Illegal importation is putting pressure on animal rescue centres, particularly in the south-east of England, and controls at border inspection posts are few and ineffective. It is still unclear how those will operate as Britain leaves the EU. There are also concerns about consumer protection and the risk to human health.
The RSPCA believes that the market for the puppy trade in Britain is anywhere from 700,000 to 1.9 million pups annually. Poor breeding, dealing and trading practices can have a long-term impact on animal welfare, leading to chronic health and behaviour problems and disappointed consumers, who find their new puppies falling ill or dying not long after purchase. Many would like to see the reintroduction of the requirement for a rabies blood test, which would reduce the risk of disease spreading, and the introduction of a wait period. Will the Minister comment on that?
Puppy smuggling is a shameful practice that causes trauma to innocent dogs and can lead to the spread of diseases to other dogs and humans in the UK. Puppies ought to be protected from that treatment, and consumers ought to be prevented from unwittingly purchasing an animal that may be unhealthy and badly behaved. It is time to raise sentences, bring in more rigorous border checks and increase consumer understanding to ensure that this immoral trade is stamped out and that animals are kept free from harm. I thank Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA for their briefings.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on bringing forward this important debate. Puppy smuggling is an abhorrent crime, carried out with no regard for the welfare of puppies trapped in unimaginable conditions for days at a time. Like everyone else, I want to do everything I can to bring it to an end.
Those involved in the puppy smuggling trade rely on low animal welfare standards and high-volume breeding, treating these beautiful animals like products on a production line that runs from puppy farms in eastern Europe to homes in the UK. There is no doubt that puppies raised and sold through the industry suffer life-long physical and mental impacts, leading to chronic health conditions and often severe behavioural problems.
It is clear that the Government cannot eradicate the problem alone. We all have to take responsibility for ensuring that puppies are not sourced through third parties. Guidelines and advice from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the buying of puppies and dogs have not gone far enough in ensuring that those wishing to purchase puppies know the harm that third-party selling and puppy smuggling can cause. Demand and supply go hand in hand, and the scourge of puppy smuggling cannot be eradicated unless both are addressed and preventive measures are upheld to deter and stop those at both ends of this cruel supply chain.
I am sure all Members welcomed, as I did, the Government’s announcement that they intended to bring forward stricter punishments for animal cruelty offences. Tougher custodial sentences are long overdue for those who inflict harm on animals, such as the barbaric and unscrupulous criminals who facilitate puppy smuggling. I remain concerned, however, that the Government have not laid legislation to that effect before Parliament.
Brexit presents us with an opportunity to improve and tighten the rules and regulations on animal welfare. It is incredibly clear that the Government must take action to protect animal welfare and end puppy smuggling for good. We cannot delay any longer. We risk falling behind on the issue, and to do so would be to fail every one of the puppies trapped in this barbaric trade.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on calling this important debate. I am a dog lover. I lost my Labrador 18 months ago, and I still think about him every day, as sad as that might sound. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] I have the sympathy of the audience, which is always a good move.
The issue goes beyond DEFRA. There should be cross-Department, joined-up thinking. Each element of the debate about puppy smuggling touches on three major Departments. It is estimated that more than 80,000 puppies a year come from places such as Ireland, Romania, Hungary and Lithuania. As we heard from the hon. Gentleman, criminal gangs can earn more than £2 million annually from the puppy trade. A ring of puppy dealers in Manchester was found to be earning £35,000 a week, with puppies being sold for anything between £550 and £1,000, depending on the breed, despite being purchased for only around £200 each from a puppy farm in Ireland. The trade costs the Treasury millions in lost tax revenue. The issue should be addressed by the Treasury.
If we are talking about puppies being smuggled in, the Home Office has to look at controls at border inspection posts. They are few and far between and are often ineffective, meaning that more puppies are allowed to be smuggled into the UK. It is unclear how that will operate post-Brexit. Checks that do take place are insufficiently intelligence-led, meaning that information sharing needs to be improved between agencies, carriers, customs officials and vets. That issue should be addressed by the Home Office.
We have the DEFRA Minister here, and there is one thing he can do. I want to join other voices in paying tribute to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Dogs Trust for their campaign to increase animal cruelty sentences from six months to five years. I cannot tell the Chamber how important that would be in tackling puppy smuggling. It has to be introduced right now. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield—
Chris Evans
Sorry. I know my hon. Friend is a Sheffield Wednesday supporter. If the change cannot be brought in by Government, they should at least provide time for a private Member’s Bill so we can introduce it forthwith. The change has been promised for a long time, and the issue is ongoing. Action needs to be taken now.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Ah! Sir Roger, I am afraid you have only a minute, but you are welcome to it.
Sir Roger Gale
That is fine, Mr Hollobone. I will make three points very quickly in a minute. First, I live 15 miles from Dover. I use the cross-Channel ferries about 16 times a year. I am subjected to regular checks. The police are searching for firearms, drugs and terrorists. I cannot believe they cannot find puppies too.
Secondly, this is about money. We have to kill the trade, and the way we do that is by taking away the vehicle and crushing it in front of the owner on the quayside at Dover.
Thirdly, my son is a vet in a small animal practice. He picks up the bits of this trade time after time. It is miserable. The people who buy the puppies face considerable distress. The short answer is public education: if it is cheap, it is probably also nasty.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing yet another important debate on puppy smuggling almost 17 months to the day since he last brought the same matter to the attention of the House. He has spoken in detail again and outlined all the issues extremely well. I also congratulate all Members who took part in the debate. This issue has support across the House. Although I do not have enough time to cover all the points that were raised, I thank everyone for their contributions and I support their points.
I am proud to say that I stand here representing two groups that have appeared to make significant progress on the issue in the 17 months since the last debate. First, as primary sponsor of the hugely popular Lucy’s law campaign to ban third-party sales of puppies, which will finally remove the market for smuggled pups, I commend the UK Government for confirming that historic change to the legislation, which I believe is imminent—
Angela Smith
I just want to ask whether the same is being done in Scotland.
Dr Cameron
I will come to that. That historic change to the legislation will be the first major legislative step to help tackle not only illegal puppy smuggling and selling from abroad, but legal licensed puppy farm cruelty in this country.
Secondly, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, APDAWG. The group has successful meetings on this subject and well-attended members’ events. APDAWG—backed by a well-supported early-day motion and an e-petition, which secured over 100,000 signatures in just 13 days, and supported by the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and almost every other welfare organisation in the UK—was instrumental in the success of Lucy’s law. I commend all the work done to bring that forward.
Since I am the owner of a rescue dog, Rossi—a French bulldog, which is one of the most popular breeds for smugglers—it is not surprising that puppy smuggling is a subject close to my heart. It is also close to the hearts of my constituents in Scotland, where it is not uncommon for puppies to be smuggled in from Ireland and sold on via third-party dealers. The smuggling of puppies into the UK mainland for resale has been ongoing for many years and has repeatedly been raised by organisations such as Dogs Trust, which I commend for its work.
Welfare issues in pups and adult dogs include the conditions at breeding establishments where puppies are born and reared; the age at which puppies are separated from their mothers; the conditions under which puppies are transported; the length of travel time; the low standards of hygiene and increased risk of disease in undernourished, stressed young animals; the risk to public health and the health of the resident pet population from non-endemic and potentially zoonotic diseases entering the UK; and false documentation, fraud and tax evasion. That is by no means a complete list, but it gives some idea of the serious nature of the issue and how it affects both animals and humans.
The commercial sale of puppies through licensed third-party dealers provides a legitimate market for puppies imported from outside the UK. The existence of that market has significantly facilitated the lucrative legal and illegal puppy trade. Illegal dealers have been able to advertise and trade alongside licensed sellers because, under the outdated and recently repealed Pet Animals Act 1951, it has been perfectly legal for puppies to be sold on a commercial basis by persons other than the breeder, away from where they were born and without being seen alongside their mothers.
The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which were introduced in October, have considerably tightened up the licensing requirements for dog breeding and selling. As we have heard, in December 2018 the Government committed to banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens in England in a measure known as Lucy’s law. That will be a significant development in the fight against puppy smuggling, so will the Minister give us a date for bringing it to fruition?
It is hoped that Wales and Scotland will also ban commercial third-party puppy sales to ensure that legislation is consistent across the UK and that anyone who sells a puppy on the UK mainland is totally traceable and accountable. Both legislatures have consultations under way on the issue.
I hope that I have suggested what the issues today are. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As other hon. Members have done, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) for securing this debate and for keeping up the pressure to get this terrible activity banned. We need to keep up that pressure if we are to make progress.
There is huge public appetite for robust action to improve the lives of animals and strengthen the animal protections in our laws. We are a nation of animal lovers, and we want all our animals to be well loved and given the opportunity to live happy and stable lives. Puppy smuggling is just one of many serious animal welfare issues that all Members read about in our postbags. Since last year’s debate on the matter, I have been proud to launch the Labour party’s animal plan, which pledges to take increased measures to tackle puppy smuggling. It has received an excellent response and we are working on the next version, which I hope to be able to share with hon. Members shortly.
It is obvious that the humane treatment of animals should be a benchmark for a civilised society. As parliamentarians, we must send out a strong message that the illegal importation of puppies is a cruel practice that must stop; there has been extraordinary consensus on that today, just as there was last year. The Animal and Plant Health Agency and many animal welfare charities such as the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home have done a lot of crucial and very welcome work to tackle puppy smuggling.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said, it really is time for the Government to act. I know that their commitment to banning the third-party sale of puppies and kittens through Lucy’s law, which the Minister announced in December, has been welcomed by Cats Protection and many dog charities—it is indeed welcome, but we need to see results as soon as possible. The pledge to increase sentences is also welcome, but the legislation needs to be introduced as soon as possible so that we can debate it, scrutinise it and get it on the statute book; I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of when that will happen. In the meantime, Government agencies need the resources to tackle puppy smuggling by enforcing the current legislation. We need to ensure that we have sufficient border guards, with greater international co-operation between police forces to crack down on the problem properly.
As we have heard, dogs should be available only from licensed and regulated breeders or from approved rehoming organisations. Unfortunately, the current legislation does not protect the welfare of all dogs or the interests of all consumers, so the only solution is to ban third-party sales entirely. We have heard about the terrible treatment of smuggled dogs and the terrible diseases and health problems that they can suffer, as in the really sad story that the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire told. As long as there is a market for cheap, intensively bred puppies, such welfare problems will persist, because the incentives for non-compliance far exceed the penalties.
Availability may artificially inflate demand, so unless we reduce the supply of cheap, poorly bred puppies from dealers and smugglers, we will never bring a more responsible buying culture into society. Ministers have said that prospective buyers should always insist on seeing a puppy interacting with its mother in the place where it was born, but that advice is inconsistent with the ongoing legality of third-party sales, because it concedes that neither animals nor consumers can be protected by the regulations imposed on the industry. We therefore need a third-party sales ban as soon as possible.
I do not think that it is too ambitious to want to move on now, or to ask the Government to do more to enable that. Animal welfare must not be swept under the carpet or undercut, so I ask the Minister again for a commitment that he will continue to show that he understands the need for this legislation and that he will do everything he can to stamp out this appalling trade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing the debate. It is a testament to the hard work of my hon. Friend and many other Members, and to public concern, that so many are present. I am grateful for his work and his active communication.
Since my appointment as Minister, it has become increasingly clear to me that we need to tackle the abhorrent puppy smuggling trade from end to end by looking at both supply and demand. I have spent a lot of time working with officials on the issue. Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I have zero tolerance for the unscrupulous dealers and breeders who are simply abusing the pet travel scheme—we need to put an end to that.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—no, my hon. Friend; I am elevating him before his time, but I am sure that his time will come—for highlighting such an abhorrent case, which brought home just how awful and how illegal puppy smuggling activities are. We need to do everything we can to protect animals, their potential owners and other humans who may suffer from the health risks. We must tackle the issue as best we can and with real urgency.
Along with 137 other Members of Parliament, I have pledged to be part of the Dogs Trust’s campaign to end puppy smuggling. I stand by that commitment fully, and I am very grateful to the trust for its hard work on this really important issue. We must also respect the important work that the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home do to shine a spotlight on the issue.
DEFRA’s overall comprehensive approach to tackling puppy smuggling encompasses international engagement, enforcement, tighter regulations and public communications. We have been doing a great deal of work on all those fronts since the last Westminster Hall debate in 2017.
The Government continue to raise the issue of puppy smuggling at an international level. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, raised that issue today. International engagement is particularly important in the wake of intelligence such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, which suggests that puppies from non-EU countries such as Serbia are being illegally imported into the UK with EU passports and microchips, to make them appear EU-bred. Our chief veterinary officer has written to Serbia and Hungary, which is one of the potential receiving countries, to highlight our concerns.
Neil Parish
I have raised this point before. At the moment, people can bring in five puppies legally. I do not think that anyone needs five puppies for their own need. Will the Minister look at that? I mention the word “Brexit”, and leaving the EU under whatever system and circumstance. Can we reduce the allowance to two puppies? I really do not think anyone needs five puppies; it is just open to abuse from criminal gangs.
David Rutley
My hon. Friend has been very consistent on this point in Committee and in other meetings, and that is something that we will be able to look at. We have sympathy with the point that he, and many others, make.
To highlight the international dimension of the issue, I note that it is not just us who are concerned about the illegal puppy trade. At a recent international forum, Austrian, Dutch, German, French, Italian and Danish representatives all highlighted the increase in the trade.
Many hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), and the hon. Members for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) have talked about the need to increase 10-fold the maximum sentence for animal cruelty, from six months to five years. We are absolutely committed to that, and I am very keen to bring that to the House—
David Rutley
And we will do it very shortly. This is a huge priority for us. Obviously, it requires primary legislation. I hope that hon. Members can see that I am as committed as they are to bringing this forward as soon as we can, but it requires other parts of the Government to work with us. We will push it through. I know that the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) will cut me a little bit of slack, because she knows that I am keen to move the matter forward.
The hon. Member for Workington raised resources. We have increased resources at major UK ports by one third since 2017, specifically to detect smuggled puppies. That has helped us to intercept tragic cases such as that of Lola, the heavily pregnant French bulldog, who has already been mentioned today. Last year, we also launched our new dog importation intelligence steering group. It consists of national enforcement agencies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Border Force, the police and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who are forming a collaborative partnership with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to disrupt puppy smuggling. I know that my right hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and for Ashford (Damian Green) are concerned about that issue.
Our collaborative relationship with Border Force continues, and last year Border Force established a special point of contact at Dover, who is specifically in post to share information and intelligence on suspected puppy smuggling. DEFRA and APHA officials have been working in partnership with the Dogs Trust since 2015 on the Dover puppy pilot, which aims to tackle the illegal importation of puppies by providing additional resource to seize and quarantine smuggled puppies, as well as to ensure that they are placed in secure, caring homes afterwards.
APHA continues to be fully engaged at the border, and last year we saw a downturn in the number of non-compliant puppies seized. It is, however, too early to draw any conclusions from that single result, but we will continue to monitor the situation and to shine a spotlight on the issue.
Based on what we have seen so far, there is limited overall evidence of concealed smuggling, with the exception of one case last year in which Border Force collaborated with APHA to intercept 10 heavily sedated and concealed puppies. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire mentioned that case in his opening remarks. I will be discussing the issue in more detail with the Minister for Immigration when I meet her later this month to further our continued collaboration on puppy smuggling, which is one of the requests that has been made. We need a joined-up approach.
Improving and ensuring the welfare of animals is at the heart of our recent welfare reforms. In December last year, we announced that we were going to ban the third-party selling of puppies and kittens. I was proud to be able to do that. Third-party sales are often linked to so-called puppy farms and to shocking welfare conditions, which many of us have seen on video or TV footage. It is absolutely abhorrent, and a ban will mean that puppies and kittens younger than six months can only be sold by the breeder directly or adopted through rescue and rehoming centres.
When the selling of puppies is restricted to licensed breeders, that will also help to deter people from attempting to bring puppies into the country to be sold here. The ban will help to tackle puppy smuggling as well as to address welfare issues here in England. I know that hon. Members are interested to know when that secondary legislation will be laid, and I can tell them that that will be later this spring—so, very soon.
David Rutley
There are plenty of other things going on—I can see hon. Members complaining, but we are moving forward later this spring. There is much more that we want to do to move this forward—
David Rutley
We are getting on with it. As many hon. Members have said, we need to look at the effectiveness of on-the-spot fines. We will look at that and will review the effectiveness of mandating carriers to conduct 100% visual checks of all dogs travelling. For example, Eurotunnel has a pet checking reception, built in 2015, which gives it the capacity to visually check many dogs, and we will be exploring the positive impacts of that in tackling puppy smuggling.
We need to do more on communications with the public to help them to understand the commitments they are making at the point of purchase, and to help them think about where the puppy that they are so keen to buy has been sourced from.
Coming back to the “B” word, which a few hon. Members have mentioned, we will be considering our future approach to regulation in the context of the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. We are open to actively exploring future options and opportunities for our pet travel scheme, and will look at each of the recommendations from the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association as a part of that. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Mid Worcestershire that we are committed to taking further action, and that we will continue to ensure that there are robust controls on disease and animal welfare after we leave the EU.
My time is just about up and I hear some shouts outside, which I hope are not about this particular subject. I and the Government are committed to working collaboratively with colleagues to take further action on this vitally important issue.
Nigel Huddleston
I just briefly say a very big thank you to so many colleagues, from all nations and all parts of the UK, who have contributed to the debate and have made so many compelling arguments and constructive recommendations in so many different policy areas where we can take action. I also thank the Minister for the content and the tone of his response. I do not doubt for one minute his sincerity. I have trust and faith that we will see action from him, but we wish to be very clear that there is a sense of urgency. There is a bit of impatience, but we will trust the Government that they will take action. We are a nation of dog lovers and animal lovers. Let us take some more action so that we can really show that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of puppy smuggling.
Written Statements
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingent Liability Notification and Disclosure of Asset Sale
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I can today confirm that I have laid a Treasury minute informing the House of the contingent liability that HM Treasury has taken on in authorising the sale of a portfolio of NRAM (formerly part of Northern Rock) loans acquired during the financial crisis under the last Labour Government. This sale generates proceeds of £4.9 billion for the Exchequer and the portfolio will be sold to Citi. The majority of financing is being provided by PIMCO. Metric Impact Sale proceeds £4.9 billion Hold valuation Net present value of the assets if held to maturity using Green Book assumptions The price achieved is above the hold value range Public Sector Net Borrowing Increased by: £206 million in 2019-20 £176 million in 2020-21 £148 million in 2021-22 £121 million in 2012-23 and £99 million in 2023-24 Public Sector Net Debt Improved by £4.9 billion in 2019-20 Public Sector Net Liabilities Improved by £182 million in 2019-20 Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities Improved by £149 million in 2019- 20
Rationale
The previous Government intervened in the financial sector to preserve financial stability; this policy objective has now been met, and these assets should be returned to the private sector. The proceeds from this sale will reduce public sector net debt. This marks a major milestone in the plan to recover taxpayers’ money and exit from the Government’s shareholdings in NRAM and Bradford & Bingley.
Format and Timing
The Government, UK Asset Resolution (UKAR) and UK Government investments concluded that this sale achieves value for money for the taxpayer having (i) conducted a rigorous analysis of whether market conditions were conducive for the sale of this portfolio; (ii) considered whether the transaction was likely to generate sufficient competitive tension to lead to a properly competitive process; and (iii) conducted an assessment of the fair market value for the assets. The sale made use of a two-round bidding process, which has been shown to create competitive tension through the bidding process and been used for previous sales of UKAR assets.
Contingent Liability
On this occasion, due to the sensitivities surrounding the commercial negotiation of this sale, it was not possible to notify Parliament of the particulars of the liability in advance of the sale announcement.
The contingent liability includes certain market standard time and value capped warranties and indemnities confirming regulatory, legislative and contractual compliance. The maximum contingent liability arising from these warranties and indemnities is approximately £1 billion. There are further remote fundamental market-standard warranties which are capped at £4.9 billion.
Fiscal Impacts
I can confirm that the sale proceeds of £4.9 billion are above the Government’s hold valuation. In 2019-20 the sale reduces public sector net debt (PSND) by £4.9 billion, as well as reducing public sector net liabilities (PSNL) by £182 million, and public sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL) by £149 million. PSNFL and PNSL are reduced by different amounts as PSNL also takes into account provisions against the loans that are being released. Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) will increase by a total of £750 million by 2023-24. PSNB is increased by the sale as the Government will no longer receive the interest payments associated with these assets.
The impacts on the fiscal aggregates, in line with fiscal forecasting convention, are not discounted to present value. The net impacts of the sale on a selection of fiscal metrics are summarised as follows:
I will update the House of any further changes to NRAM as necessary.
[HCWS1477]
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 18 March.
The main item on the agriculture-focused agenda was the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2020, covering three legislative files:
the regulation on CAP strategic plans,
the horizontal regulation, which is a regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP,
the regulation on common market organisation (CMO) of agricultural products.
Member states highlighted that further discussions were needed in areas such as the delivery model, wine labelling and greening. I intervened to introduce myself and expressed the UK’s interest to share thinking on our domestic arrangements as they develop. During the discussion Ministers also debated the outcome of the congress titled “CAP Strategic Plans - Exploring Eco-Climate Schemes” which took place in Leeuwarden, Netherlands on 6-8 February 2019, as well as the future of coupled income support in the CAP.
Council also held an exchange of views on the bioeconomy. Commissioner Hogan gave an overview of the implementation of the EU’s new strategy while member states exchanged examples of areas where the bioeconomy is being developed in their countries. I intervened on the item, welcoming the EU bioeconomy strategy and pointing to the UK’s national bioeconomy strategy which was published in December 2018.
A number of other items were discussed under ‘any other business’:
Slovenia informed Council about small-scale coastal fisheries and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.
The Netherlands informed Council about a decision by the Technical Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office regarding the possibility to patent the results of classical plant breeding.
The Commission provided an update about the outcomes of the workshops organised by the Commission Task Force for Water and Agriculture on 27 November 2018 in Sore, Denmark and on 5-6 February 2019 in Bucharest, Romania.
Poland provided an update on the potential impact on the meat market considering new trade challenges. As the discussion reflected on the possible impact of the UK leaving the EU, I intervened to set out the reasoning behind our recently published temporary tariff regime for no-deal.
[HCWS1476]
HMP Birmingham
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
Today the Secretary of State and I can confirm the future plans for HMP Birmingham following the step in initiated by HMPPS and also the urgent notification received by the Secretary of State from HM chief inspector of prisons on 20th August 2018.
We have concluded with the full agreement of G4S that the best way forward now is for us to end the contract and bring back the prison under public sector management.
The situation at HMP Birmingham was totally unacceptable which is why we “stepped in” in August 2018 and why we continued to do so in February 2019. We were always clear that the prison would not be handed back until we were satisfied that sufficient progress had been made.
The prison has made some good progress—both we and G4S have however recognised that there is still much more to do to deliver further improvements. It has become increasingly clear that G4S alone is not able to make the improvements that were so badly needed, and that additional ongoing support from the public sector Prison Service is required to ensure that the prison gets the stability and continuity that will be necessary for sustained progress.
This means that on 1 July 2019, HMP Birmingham will return to public sector management. We have agreed a settlement with G4S of £9.9 million, which covers the additional cost to the MOJ of its “step in” action—meeting our previous public commitment and which also includes an amount to cover essential maintenance works.
Our responsibility is to make sure that prisons are properly run for prisoners and the public. At Birmingham, we must accelerate the good work that has already commenced to stabilise the prison for the longer term. The foundation for that is making sure that we have a clean, decent and safe prison. That is the foundation from which we can do all the other things we want to do—in particular, rehabilitate people, change lives and ultimately protect the public.
What we need to focus on now is building on the positive work achieved to date at HMP Birmingham. We are clear that we have made progress and got some of the necessary basics on the right track to drive improvement; specifically, with the deployment of experienced HMPPS staff, managers and specialists we have significantly increased staff confidence, gained greater order and control and improved day-to-day regime delivery. I am confident that we are beginning to get a grip on the issues driving violence and that we will see the results of this in the coming months.
Progress on decency has also been made; two of the three large Victorian wings which did not meet our expectations have been taken out of use. The third will also soon be fully out of use, as another newly refurbished wing builds to full occupancy. Cleanliness has improved across the site and the visitors centre is being refurbished. This work forms part of the family strategy supporting prisoners and their families to stay in touch, which is key to rehabilitation.
HMPPS staff are also tackling some of the key security risks. A dedicated search team has been introduced and improved, intelligence-led searching has been yielding good results. Specifically, a full lock down search was conducted recently in a major operation involving staff from across the wider service, which was successful in finding and confiscating contraband, and taking disciplinary action taken against the relevant prisoners as a result.
It is also important for staff and prisoners to know what the future of the prison looks like and to remove uncertainty. Paul Newton, the governor who has been running the prison during step in, will remain in post following the transfer back into the public. We will continue to work closely with G4S to support the prison and to make the transition as smooth as possible in the meantime for both staff and prisoners.
This is the right decision for HMP Birmingham but we continue to believe that prisoners and the public benefit from a mixed economy of provision. We are going to remain in a situation where the majority of our prisons will continue to be run by the public sector, but the private sector has a role to play. The private sector has delivered real value for money and some new approaches that have been really impressive.
We have now been running private prisons for 25 years. By and large, that experience has been positive. In fact, G4S’s itself, its performance at Oakwood, Parc and Altcourse has been impressive. They are good prisons. So are Bronzefield, Ashfield, Forest Bank and Thameside, run by other private sector providers.
It makes sense to us that for the next couple of new prisons we give the private sector a chance to bid, but we have set a public sector benchmark. We have explained what the costs would be of the public sector providing the quality of service we want at a prison, and if private sector bidders are not able to provide better value for money, we would look again at the public sector running those establishments.
We will of course be learning lessons from Birmingham which must support our approach to contracting for private prisons in the future.
I strongly believe that this decision is the right one for HMP Birmingham at this time. I am pleased that G4S have also recognised this and are working with us to deliver better outcomes for prisoners and a better working environment for staff. I look forward to being able to report further good progress at HMP Birmingham in the coming months.
[HCWS1475]
Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2019: Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2019 maintains the Government’s commitment to the triple lock for both the basic state pension and the new state pension. The order also increases benefits for carers, guardians and those with disabilities and long-term health conditions; sharing the proceeds of economic growth with some of the most vulnerable in society.
I would like to clarify the following points I made during the Social Security Benefits Up-rating 2019-20 debate on 4 March 2019 and apologise to the House for these inadvertent errors:
That the order reflects the Government’s continuing commitment to increase the full rates of the basic and new state pensions by the triple lock.
Regarding the pension credit standard minimum guarantee—the means-tested threshold below which pensioner incomes should not fall—from April 2019, the single person threshold of this safety-net benefit will rise to £167.25—over £1,800 a year higher than it was in 2010.
With this up-rating order, I am bringing forward plans to increase support for some of the most vulnerable people in society to the tune of £3.7 billion, with £3.6 billion alone to help those with disabilities and long-term health conditions, and pensioners—key people who the Government, as we share the proceeds of growth, will continue to target support towards.
The severe disablement allowance will increase from £77.65 to £79.50. The severe disability premia for a single person have increased from £64.30 to £65.85.
The transcript to the original debate can be found here:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-03-04/debates/1E3A4E87-E2BC-4C53-98D5-E4497A48722D/SocialSecurity.
[HCWS1474]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Aid: Anti-Corruption Measures
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they take to ensure that anti-corruption measures are supported as part of (1) aid to developing countries, and countries recovering from natural disasters, and (2) the reconstruction of former conflict areas.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, every minute of the 60 for this debate is allocated, which is great. I therefore respectfully ask that everybody adhere to their time slot, which would be much appreciated.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this debate. I thank other noble Lords for participating in such numbers, even though it has an impact on everyone’s timing. I also thank the House of Lords Library for the research briefing we all received, which I am sure everyone agrees is excellent. I am especially pleased that today we have the privilege of my noble friend the Minister finding time in his busy schedule to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government.
I begin by making absolutely clear that I am a passionate advocate of the Government’s commitment to investing 0.7% of GDP in international development. It is now more important than ever that the UK is seen to be at the forefront of international development, and I echo the ambition of my right honourable friend in the other place, Andrew Mitchell, that the UK must be a development superpower as we find our way forward in a post-European Union environment. Too often, corruption in recipient countries is used by some as a reason for the UK to reduce its aid programmes. It is my view that it is our responsibility to try to eliminate corruption in recipient countries, whether at a governmental level or, as is often the case, at an endemic cultural level, and not to stand aside from it.
I very much welcome the Government’s joined-up corruption strategy, especially the focus on joint working resulting from the 2016 anti-corruption conference and the five-year plan from 2017 to 2022. However, while not wishing in any way to underestimate the importance of the Government’s international efforts, I should like to focus this afternoon on the country-by-country strategy that I believe is necessary to deal with corruption in much of the developing world.
My interest is in seeing the UK use its significant development muscle to ensure that the corruption that blights so many of the developing countries we wish to support is reduced. This corruption does much to undermine the social and political contract necessary for developing countries to succeed. There is little point in our investing in the stability of these states if the populace do not have confidence in their state. It is also essential that our international development programmes have the flexibility to react to new types of corruption formed in reaction to natural disasters and post-conflict situations. All too often, this corruption manifests itself around the issues of internally displaced persons, refugees, human trafficking and the abuse of minorities.
I refer to my registered interests and to my visit last year to Baghdad with my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, as guests of the Iraqi Government. Time and time again, when speaking to young people, religious minorities, government Ministers and representatives of civic society, we were told that corruption was the greatest obstacle to reconstruction. From the ability of internally displaced people to return, to the ability of young people to get on and not have to think constantly of emigrating to North America or Europe, it was the insidious low-level corruption that follows war—as night follows day—that was raised with us. The Iraqi Government were trying their best to deal with the problem, but it was clear that there was an expectation that at least some of our development support should be directed towards supporting them in that task.
In Iraq and elsewhere, it is frequently minorities—for example, Christians and Yazidis in Iraq—who find corruption the biggest obstacle to remaining in their own country. Emigration then becomes the only option for many and, as the critical mass of the minority decreases, the corruption faced by the remaining minority increases. Corruption undoubtedly falls more heavily on minorities, and raises significant human rights issues. That is why an important part of the work that DfID should do is to develop a country-by-country strategy, identifying both victims and potential victims of low-level corruption, and how aid and partnership—working with the relevant Governments—can reduce pressure on these minorities. Day-to-day corruption, focused on specific minorities or certain geographical areas, can easily become a human rights issue, and I would be grateful if my noble friend would confirm that there is regular interaction between the various country desks in the FCO, human rights monitoring and DfID on these issues.
The report on overseas corruption by the International Development Committee in the other place clearly identifies that it is only through bespoke country plans that corruption can be dealt with at source. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for corruption in any individual country; it needs to take into account the culture, customs, history and demographic make-up of any individual state. The department has correctly been praised by, for example, the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, for being able to focus a bespoke plan on countries. What progress has been made in producing new country-by-country anti-corruption strategies? I am disappointed that the last publication of a large number of country-by-country strategies was in 2013. I recognise and applaud the enormous strides the Government have made in supporting anti-corruption in Afghanistan, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania. However, unless there are broader strategies beyond these countries, the department may lose reactive flexibility.
Likewise, there clearly needs to be a serious focus on low-level, day-to-day corruption, along with a requirement to reverse what can be a deeply embedded culture, which will take a long-term timescale. We are in danger of always looking at five-year cycles, and of short-termism when dealing with issues that have been embedded for many decades. Even in these unpredictable times, with the support of all major parties, DfID has an enviable position, in contrast to other departments, of being able to develop a long-term plan beyond the usual five-year cycle. Would the Minister reassure me that a longer-term approach can be used on anti-corruption methods in individual countries, beyond the five-year cycle?
We are all rightly proud that, through DfID, we as a country are available to help immediately after a natural disaster, or to help those fleeing conflict zones. As well as day-to-day, low-level corruption, there is a danger of any emergency aid programme being reactive and, in a fast-moving environment, that systems protecting programmes from corruption may not yet be in place. As part of disaster prevention, can bespoke strategies be identified for potential disasters in vulnerable and developing countries, so that on arrival in that country, British aid and emergency help may be prepared for any corruption endemic in that particular country?
I do not share the cynicism of some in this country about the benefit of the work DfID carries out. We have a humanitarian responsibility, and it is fundamentally in our own interests, to support developing countries across the world. It would be helpful, however, in dealing with the naysayers in the United Kingdom, if there was a clear country-by-country strategy on what corruption we are determined to remove from these countries.
I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords this afternoon. We have much to be proud of in all that DfID does, but we must move beyond just a commitment to 0.7%, to ensure that everything we do deals with the corruption that gets in the way of so much development work.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his initiative and on his challenges, particularly on long-termism.
My concern is that, with so much evidence of serious corruption and malpractice, those in the field and on the front line will become demotivated, and the public—the taxpayers—will become demoralised and turn against development aid. There are many such stories. Last week, for example, I read of the position in Haiti. Ten years after the earthquake, little has changed and, after 18 years, PetroCaribe has become a vast cash machine: $2.4 billion has just disappeared, at a time when there is so much need in that sad country.
Yet we in Europe should be hesitant about throwing stones at those in the developing world. For example, the Nordics top the league tables of the least corrupt countries in the world, but there is increasing evidence of their defences against corruption crumbling before the incoming tide of Russian dirty money. If a branch makes a healthy profit, why should the head office worry about it? Take Danske Bank; over €200 billion of questionable Russian money flowed through its Estonian branch. Last week, the biggest bank in the Baltics, Swedbank, was revealed to be the conduit for €135 billion of Russian and other ex-Soviet money.
How well do we do at combating this? How clean are our hands? At the risk of complacency, overall our record is good. We are just eighth in the Transparency International index. The anti-corruption strategy from 2017 to 2022 is impressive, showing a clear awareness of the problem domestically and internationally, and a determination to establish monitoring procedures. The noble Lord mentioned the problem of Iraq; I hope that when we turn to reconstruction in Syria, we will have learned some of the lessons from there. It is absurd that Russia is looking to the West to take a major role in reconstruction in Syria, having wreaked so much damage itself.
Most troubling of all is the claim trumpeted in the strategy document:
“We will put transparency at the heart of our approach to government. This will include continuing to champion the adoption of public registers of company beneficial ownership and working with the UK’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies to implement strengthened arrangements. It is our ambition to ensure all countries adopt public registers”.
Since then, an amendment has been moved in Parliament. We note, for example, that only after the Skripal outrage in Salisbury did the Government yield to all-party pressure and bring the overseas territories, such as the British Virgin Islands and others, into the net of a public register—to yelps of pain from the overseas territories. Equally, when faced with a similar all-party coalition in the other place to make the Crown dependencies have public registers, the Government unexpectedly withdrew a whole Bill, to which the all-party coalition had tacked the question of the Crown dependencies. If we believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that we should set a great example ourselves, coming to the table with clean hands when we lecture the developing world, we should clearly look carefully at what we have done on transparency, with regard to the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—or we shall rightly be accused of hypocrisy. Dickens defined hypocrisy as a signpost that points the way to go but does not go there itself. We should be well aware of that danger. Our record is good, but there are omissions and problems of which we should be well aware.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for raising this important Question. I draw attention to my non-financial interest as a vice-president of the Leprosy Mission. I hasten to add that, to the best of my knowledge, that excellent organisation has not been infected by the scourge of corruption.
However, all of us involved in third sector aid must be vigilant and realistic about the temptations even for those whose careers and lives are essentially altruistic. The diocese I serve used to have what the Anglican Communion calls a companion link with a diocese in a very poor area of a very poor African country, where corruption is rife at all levels. We found it extremely difficult to support church work, rural clinics, schools and so on without significant amounts of money going astray—despite our best efforts as required by the Finance Act 2010 and by our own ethical standards.
The Finance Act 2010 requires those giving money for charitable purposes to assure themselves that it is being spent as the donors intended. Although this is absolutely right, it makes it almost impossible for relatively small donors to give to anything other than large, well-managed appeals. The easy way out of this problem is to pull out of offering or providing aid in those contexts where corruption is most rife. On the small scale at which a parish, or even a diocese, operates, this might be the right and only option, unless we can afford to have our own people on the ground, which in any case adds a whole new layer of difficulty and potential for corruption.
Sadly, I suspect that the days of small organisations giving money for small projects in difficult areas may have to end. But on the scale of major NGOs and Governments, that approach will not do and cannot be countenanced. The sad fact is that the very poorest are the main victims of corruption. It is they who suffer and lose most, but they are also the ones who suffer even more if corruption is punished by the withholding of aid.
It is widely recognised, including by our Government and the United Nations, that we must design and deliver aid programmes so that corruption becomes as near to impossible as we can make it. I venture to hope that, as the Government and the larger NGOs address this issue, they will also consider how smaller charities and even individuals can safely offer aid and support to the sort of small-scale projects that can make a real difference to people but come under the radar of much of the policy-making in this area.
I am proud of our national 0.7% commitment to overseas aid, and of the wonderful work done by government, NGOs and faith bodies to serve and support the poorest people in the world. May we not put that noble task and responsibility at risk because of corruption, but instead lead the world, as we should, in finding effective ways to give aid that reaches the most needy people and communities.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this short debate. Of course, the Government have a statutory requirement to spend 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance. They have a duty to be accountable to the taxpayer for the appropriate and effective allocation of those funds to projects worldwide, but in the real world of delivering humanitarian aid, the challenges are to assess the extent and nature of corruption in the host country and how effectively we can still deliver aid to those in dire need; and to judge if it can ever be in British interests to refuse aid or withdraw it once granted.
In June last year, the International Development Committee in another place highlighted concerns over whether money spent outside DfID is subjected to the same rigorous evaluation as that spent by the department. The chair, Stephen Twigg, said that spreading ODA across government created potential for new partnerships in aid delivery, which can be useful but also risked undermining its quality. What steps have the Government taken to ensure coherence across government in delivering aid overseas which takes account of the need for anti-corruption work in recipient countries and with what success?
Action on this matter is vital because we know that the British public are not quite as committed to the 0.7% pledge as most of us in Parliament are. That was recognised by Matthew Rycroft, Permanent Secretary at DfID on his appointment last year. He said that when you ask people why they do not support the 0.7% pledge,
“they say they don’t think it works … Or they think the whole thing is corrupt and money never ends up where it should. Those are both … criticisms and we need to address them”.
What progress does the Minister believe DfID has made in addressing those criticisms over the past year?
The very nature of DfID’s work means that its officials operate in some of the most difficult and dangerous conditions around the world, as in South Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example. In South Sudan, civil war has raged for years and its Government seem to have no care for their peoples and treat the national treasury as a personal bank account. The level of corruption and disarray means that DfID cannot do capacity-building before allocating aid, as would be the “normal” way of its doing business. Cash transfers are used to provide health services and girls’ education that give them a minimum ability to function. The education is extremely basic, but it keeps girls at school and less likely to be married off at 11 years old. That is vital in a country with high levels of sexual and gender-based violence and early marriage. I hope the Government will continue to give full support to DfID’s programmes in South Sudan.
I also welcome our humanitarian presence in the DRC in the face of sporadic violence and continuous government corruption. Can my noble friend the Minister outline the anti-corruption work carried out by the UK there and how it co-operates with other international donors?
There is evidence that UK aid work in the DRC can succeed. When at the FCO, I visited La Pépinière in Kinshasa, an excellent DfID-supported project which focused on the economic empowerment of women and girls. Can my noble friend say what gender-specific projects are supported by DfID in the DRC today?
To add to all that, the DRC has now been hit by its worst ever outbreak of Ebola; it is the second-worst ever outbreak globally. Adding to the crisis, rebels in the region have begun attacking the clinics treating Ebola sufferers. What is the Government’s assessment of the aid they can give to those trying to contain the spread of the virus?
UK humanitarian work in countries such as South Sudan and the DRC demonstrates how important it is that international donors do not “walk away” but stay to deliver aid to those who need it and persist in both anti-corruption measures and capacity-building with host Governments who cannot, or will not, help their own peoples.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the World Bank identifies corruption as a major obstacle to ending extreme poverty by 2030 and its detrimental effect on the poorest 40% of people in developing countries. It is estimated that, every year, up to £2 trillion is lost globally to corruption.
My brief remarks will centre on the dangers of corruption in the post-conflict, post-ISIS Iraq referred to by the noble Lords, Lord McInnes and Lord Anderson, and on British aid to Pakistan—I should declare that I am co-chair of the Pakistani Minorities All-Party Group and visited Lahore and Islamabad last November.
On 11 October 2017, Ministers confirmed to me funding for 80 projects benefiting Yazidis and 171 benefiting Christian communities targeted by the ISIS genocide; £40 million had been earmarked for urgent humanitarian assistance and more than £25 million for UN stabilisation efforts. On their return to the region, 746,000 Iraqis from minority communities were meant to benefit from these Funding Facility for Stabilization projects managed by the United Nations Development Programme. Over subsequent months, news circulated that the money was not reaching the affected communities. One of the main reasons for this failure was corruption. NGOs drew this to the attention of the Government and I attended a meeting with Ministers at which the details of a phantom project were described.
At the end of 2017, in response to a freedom of information request, the Department for International Development refused to provide information describing how these projects were benefiting those minorities and how they were being implemented. DfID relied on several exceptions, saying that disclosure would or might prejudice relations between the United Kingdom, Iraq and international organisations or courts, and would or might prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. In reality, the information could easily have been disclosed without identifying any details that could jeopardise the various interests cited. As many NGOs assisting survivors in Iraq insist that the money does not reach the intended recipients, such a lack of transparency is extremely disturbing.
Retrospectively, DfID now uses independent monitoring, which should have been in place from inception, rather than coming into play months if not years after the projects began. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the department’s current assessment is of the situation in Iraq. What issues concerning corruption have been detected, how have they been addressed and what steps have been taken to address the issues identified by several NGOs and raised in 2018 in a letter to the Government from Dr Russell Blacker on behalf of the National Caucus for the Persecuted Church acting on behalf of communities targeted by ISIS? This is public money and taxpayers are entitled to know the answers.
When comparable concerns about corruption in Iraq were raised with the US Administration, they responded with admirable urgency, transparency and openness, initiating internal inspector-general investigations into the final destination of US funds sent to the UNDP Funding Facility for Stabilization. The UNDP has itself initiated several internal investigations into allegations of corruption, and we should do the same.
A comparable challenge applies in Pakistan, which receives a staggering £383,000 of British taxpayers’ money every single day—£2.8 billion over 20 years. The World Economic Forum identifies corruption as the third-greatest problem for companies doing business in Pakistan, after government bureaucracy and poor infrastructure. It affects all Pakistanis but it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations— the poor, women, and religious minorities. In its report Equality in Aid, the International Dalit Solidarity Network recommended that DfID should prepare vulnerability mapping tools, inclusion monitoring tools and methods for inclusive response programming, issues I have probed with the Minister in Questions for Written Answer. Two weeks ago, I sent him news reports that one of the top three DfID spending programmes in 2018-19, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education Sector Programme, which secured £41 million, also needs to be carefully scrutinised. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has asked officials to do that. It is alleged that in several districts, money allocated to establish new educational institutions and refurbish schools was misappropriated and that these are phantom projects—ghost schools. How does the Minister intend to establish the facts? Waiting for NGOs or newspapers to report such cases simply is not good enough.
I therefore hope that today’s debate will point us towards the far more rigorous and effective use of British resources. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for giving us the opportunity to raise these issues.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McInnes for tabling this important debate. It goes without saying that the health of a nation’s governance has a material impact on its prosperity. It is also clear from our work at the Legatum Institute—I refer to my interests as set out in the register—that the rule of law and strong institutions contribute significantly to economic growth. It should therefore not be surprising that, when hampered by corruption, a nation is not able to fulfil its true potential. According to the World Bank, the average income in countries with a high level of corruption is about a third of that in countries with a low level.
Corruption can take the form of small amounts of money—for example, a bribe to an official to speed up or approve an application—and we saw evidence of this in 2015 when 32 judges in Ghana were caught accepting money and even livestock in exchange for passing shorter sentences. It can also be the large and more systemic misuse of public or private funds. Again, we saw this in Honduras when the former director of the Honduran Social Security Institute was accused of awarding $200 million-worth of contracts to phantom companies.
If we want to see the nations and people we support through our aid budgets thrive, it is essential that anti-corruption measures are embedded and supported as part of our response to disaster relief and post-conflict reconstruction. Corruption hinders this development and rebuilding process, but the converse is also true. Eradicating corruption restabilises society, builds trust and strengthens the very institutions that support citizens. It creates an environment where entrepreneurship can flourish and people can build their own ways out of poverty, disaster zones and conflict. It also builds political trust where fragile nations can begin to build more stable Governments and even see healthy oppositions develop.
What does it take to stamp out corruption? Eradicating a practice that runs deep and, in many places, is cultural does not happen naturally. Reducing corruption takes deliberate action, supported by a combination of strong political will and credible leaders, effective institutions and cultural transformation.
The challenge is not insurmountable. Issues will be, in part, as we have heard from noble Lords, specific to the culture of each nation. However, countries can learn from the example of others where corruption has been successfully reduced. As mentioned, best practice shows us that strong leadership and a consistent message of intolerance towards breaking the law has a significant impact.
In Liberia, while there is a long way still to go, the post-war commitment of President Johnson Sirleaf to reducing corruption saw her suspending her own son, along with 46 other senior government officials, for failing to disclose his assets to Liberia’s anti-corruption officials. This is strong messaging. Can the Minister outline what steps we are taking to support those leaders of fragile nations demonstrating the greatest commitment to eradicating corruption? This material was difficult to find and what I did find was evidence of how we are protecting DfID’s budget but not of how we are driving out corruption in the nations to which we are giving money.
Just as strong and effective leadership is essential in the fight against corruption, so too is the building of effective institutions. In Hong Kong in the 1960s and 1970s, an exciting new era of growth was marred by significant widespread corruption. It was common for bribes to be required when applying for schools, housing and other public services. Even ambulance crews would ask for a bribe before collecting patients and a corrupt police force was turning a blind eye to, or even protecting, illegal activities. After increasing unrest and protest by the people, the independent commission against corruption was established. By creating an institution responsible for enforcing anti-corruption measures, Hong Kong has seen a remarkable shift and now, according to Transparency International, ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Can the Minister outline where we are supporting the building of anti-corruption institutions as a crucial part of our post-conflict strategy?
Just as strong leadership and the building of effective institutions are essential in the fight against corruption, so too is a change of culture. To create cultural transformation requires concerted effort. One of the ways in which South Korea, Estonia and Latvia have sought to achieve this is through a commitment to e-government by creating an environment of transparency where bribery is no longer feasible. It has begun to create a shift in cultural norms in public services. Can the Minister outline what steps are being taken to support the development of e-systems that contribute to a change of culture and the eradication of corruption when supporting nations recovering from conflict or natural disasters? I look forward to hearing from him shortly as he outlines how his department’s strategy is harvesting these opportunities.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall perforce be brief speaking in the gap, but I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McInnes for calling this debate. I have limited, and rather outdated, experience of the developing world. I used to be chairman of an organisation called the Halo Trust, which was and may still be the world’s largest charity engaged in lifting landmines and clearing the debris of conflict from the developing world. I saw the work it did and was very impressed. I was also a founder member of the International Development Committee in the other place and spent six or seven years on it. I saw dedicated people doing excellent work on our behalf.
I believe we have a Christian duty to help those less well off than ourselves. I suspect that the right reverend Prelate, and perhaps others in the room, would agree with me, because we are extraordinarily well off and we must help other people. However, I shall give a little story. I am older than I would wish, but 50 years and more ago, at school, we had an excellent organisation called Brothers to All Men. I do not know whether it still exists. It was a Christian charity that dug wells in the developing world for those who had no access to clean water. I was so impressed that I put pennies, or perhaps even shillings, in a money box—do noble Lords remember money boxes?—to support that charity. When I was on the DfID committee—this was 15-odd years ago—we saw wells that had been dug with British aid money around the developing world.
I now see advertisements on the television imploring me to give money to charities to dig wells around the developing world. The one point I wish to add to the debate, which I have much enjoyed listening to, which perhaps the Minister will answer is: what has been going on for 50 years? Travelling around the developing world when on the DfID committee, I saw the tanks, the fighter aircraft, the conflict and the Mercedes cars provided for politicians, but I have still seen people who have no access to clean drinking water. That should have been happening through their Governments over the past 50 years.
I know it is a very difficult situation, but—I say to my noble friend Lord McInnes, that this is what the debate is all about—what can the Government do to ensure that the countries we assist with every good intention actually spend that money on helping the people they are meant to help? That includes all Governments around the world, including in developing countries.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also draw attention to my entry in the register of interests and commend the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for securing this debate on a very important subject. Like other noble Lords, I shall refer to Iraq. I strongly believe that development assistance is not the Government’s money: it is from the British public and therefore should be directed towards its intended purpose and spent properly and, where possible, used to lever in better governance and anti-corruption measures. In some respects, because it is diverted to the most vulnerable in the world, there should be even more transparency and probity over this kind of government expenditure than all others.
I had the privilege of taking through the Lords the 0.7% Act referred to. Some of the criticism levelled against it at the time was that if there was an increase in expenditure over a fixed period, that would increase the likelihood that it would be wasted. The Act’s purpose was to enshrine it in law so that government could plan on a much longer basis, as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, said. It is a fact that now we can plan further ahead, we can take a longer view of some of the deep, systemic issues, and corruption is one of those. It is also a fact, however, that development assistance is now only a very small proportion of all aid transfers, given the depressing need for much greater humanitarian assistance around the world. Therefore, the focus on anti-corruption measures in humanitarian assistance is even more important.
I wanted to make one comment of sensitivity on this issue. On some of my visits to the least developed countries, and those in a post-conflict state, over the last couple of years, I have also heard comments about countries where a President has been elected, and then shown grotesque nepotism by putting a daughter, son- in-law or other family member in office, with other members of the President’s cabinet making huge profits out of that situation. I have heard comments about a Government elected on a minority basis, then granting serious cash flows to a minority party representing one sector or group for it to be sustained in government.
We must also be sensitive to the fact that we are not immune from unfair practices in the West. That said, the UK has a strong record on transparency and aid. I am a strong supporter of the International Aid Transparency Initiative to secure development and humanitarian resources, so that their results address poverty and crises. I am also a strong supporter of Publish What You Fund, and the Aid Transparency Index—the only independent measure of aid transparency —shows that the UK ranks the highest of all Governments in the world for transparency in aid and development assistance. When we reach 90.9 out of 100, compared to China with 1.2, it shows that other large and important countries can learn from the UK.
We can also learn from the work of Transparency International. A recent interesting report looking at the DRC, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan—as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned—Yemen, Libya and Somalia also highlighted that those countries are the lowest performing in the Corruption Perceptions Index. There is a link to instability, poor transparency and corruption. In referring to some of those countries in the post-conflict scenario, a high level of corruption leads to constant instability. The work of the World Bank shows that even in those fragile countries at peace, if there are high levels of corruption, the likelihood of violent conflict increases when Governments do not adequately prevent corruption or ensure justice. In that regard, I have visited Iraq on many occasions over the last two years, one of them with the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and corruption in some parts is, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, an inhibitor to proper social reconciliation, stabilisation and reconstruction.
Last week—this did not receive much reporting in the UK—100 people drowned in a ferry disaster on the Tigris in Mosul. The Iraq Council of Representatives sacked the former governor, with whom I had a number of difficult meetings in Ninawa in the last two years over misuse of funds. I met the anti-corruption commission representative on some of those visits and, yes, the commission has an office, but it is one person with no computer, no ability to bring cases and no ability to properly tackle the challenges.
If we are to show leadership in meeting our target, we can also show leadership in meeting global goal 16 on good governance being a condition of our support, and making sure that our long-term planning drives better standards of governance. There should not be a choice between getting aid through to the people who need it and building up good institutions. Both are necessary if we are to ensure that aid goes to those who need it most.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for initiating this debate. It is positive that in a debate on corruption, we have made a strong case for development support. I thank the noble Lord for that. As he pointed out, corruption does not just steal money from where it is needed most; it leads to weak governance, which in turn can fuel organised criminal networks and promote crimes such as human trafficking and arms and migrant smuggling.
At the end of last year, the G7’s Financial Action Task Force gave the UK its highest ever ranking in recognition of the initiatives taken to help tackle corruption at source. The UK has created the first open data register of beneficial ownership, introduced measures of accountability for senior bankers and passed laws requiring individuals to explain unexplained wealth. But are these measures enough? The National Crime Agency describes the scale of the problem as,
“a strategic threat to the UK’s economy and reputation”.
By allowing the criminal and corrupt to launder their money through our financial system, we encourage and enable more organised crime and authoritarian regimes who threaten our national security.
At the time of the Salisbury attack, Global Witness analysed cash flows from Russia, which revealed that £68 billion had been invested in the UK’s overseas territories, with the British Virgin Islands the second most popular destination for money leaving Russia. As my noble friend Lord Anderson highlighted, Parliament forced the Government to require the overseas territories to bring in public registers of company owners by 2020.
I am sure the Minister will refer to the International Anti-Corruption Conference in October, where the Government announced that they were launching a campaign for global beneficial ownership transparency. For that to be credible, however, the UK must ensure that all its jurisdictions play by the same rules. As noble Lords have indicated, fighting corruption and ensuring that aid and development finance improves development outcomes requires greater levels of transparency and new ways to engage citizens to promote accountability. It is about a system of checks and balances.
I recognise the strong measures put in place by DfID to counter fraud and corruption but, as a major donor, we could advocate more. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, about making the case for a longer-term and country-by-country strategy; I wholeheartedly support that. I hope the Minister can agree that when we are proactive in publishing comprehensive, detailed and timely information on aid and development finance, we go beyond the basics and do more. I acknowledge just how much we are doing, but if we worked with partner Governments on supporting their efforts, that would also increase transparency.
My final point concerns the importance of civil society in the transparency process. It is not just about focusing on Governments and politicians; it is about ensuring that we promote the idea of checks and balances in the system. That means that when we give support, we should properly engage with civil society and citizens to ensure that they have the information so that they can hold their parliaments and parliamentarians to proper account. That is certainly what I saw when I was in Zambia last year: there were corruption scandals but, when local leaders of communities could challenge their MPs about the information that we brought to them about that corruption, we heard a different tone. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that point.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McInnes on securing this debate. I thank him and all noble Lords for their contributions during this short debate, which has gone impeccably to time, urged on no doubt by the gentle interruption at the outset from my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott.
It has been a wide-ranging debate. My noble friend Lord McInnes began by talking about how corruption can sometimes be used by those who would seek to undermine the value of overseas development assistance. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, talked about transparency, particularly in the banking system. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough talked particularly about the pressures on small charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke about some specific examples of work done in South Sudan and the DRC, particularly around gender. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about the importance of monitoring and the inclusive approach. My noble friend Lady Stroud powerfully drew a direct link between institutions, governance and economic prosperity. My noble friend Lord Robathan talked about the importance of Governments’ responsibility to their own people and ensuring that that is the prime responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, highlighted excellent third- party sources of data, such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative and Transparency International’s corruption index, and how important it is that they can be used in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, concluded by pointing to the link between corruption and organised crime and the role which civil society can play.
Let me put on record what DfID is doing in this area and then I will turn briefly to the questions that have been addressed to me. The noble Lord, Lord McInnes, rightly began by talking about the importance of tackling corruption, not only as a priority for DfID but as part of our commitment to sustainable development goal 16. Corruption impoverishes developing countries. It diverts public resources from productive use and deters business investment. It hurts the poor the most, a phrase repeated by many of your Lordships.
Tackling corruption and illicit finance is not only essential for development but is firmly in the UK’s national interest. Fighting corruption helps keep the UK secure and opens up new business opportunities and trading partners for the UK. DfID operates in a diverse range of difficult and fragile environments such as Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and in areas recovering from natural disasters and conflict, many of which have been mentioned today.
The UK is a world leader in humanitarian response and the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, urged us, in the words of my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell, to be a development superpower. That is already there if one looks at the response of the British public and DfID to the events in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe.
We have robust measures in place to reduce the risk of aid diversion. We conduct regular assessments of our partners’ financial capability systems and processes, including those of partners further down the delivery chain. This gives us confidence that our partners are well prepared to deliver aid in emergencies and that the aid will go to those in need.
The UK has led global efforts to tackle corruption. Effective measures against corruption require action at three levels: with our partners in developing countries to tackle corruption in their systems; internationally to stop the flow of corrupt money across borders, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned; and, in rich countries also, to show that we are not a haven for corrupt money, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also referred.
We can be proud of our achievements working with partners in developing countries. Due to our work, corrupt officials in Sierra Leone have been sanctioned as a direct result of data produced by the DfID-funded Pay No Bribe digital platform, which maps real-time anonymous reports of bribes. Helping countries to address corruption after conflict is vital, because if a country has been destabilised, there are new and greater opportunities for corruption to occur. DfID expertise helped in Afghanistan to establish the flagship Anti-Corruption Justice Centre, which brings together law enforcement and justice institutions to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate high-level corruption cases. My noble friend Lady Anelay talked about DfID’s work in Sudan. She has been a distinguished Minister in these roles and I pay tribute to the DfID staff who work in that difficult posting. It has been a testing time and we appreciate what they do in respect of the girls’ educational challenge and many of the other things happening there.
In addition to supporting change in developing countries, the UK must also ensure that we have our own house in order and that we are not a safe haven for corrupt money. We have a good story to tell here, although we should not be complacent. DfID funding has enabled the National Crime Agency to investigate and prosecute money laundering and bribery overseas where there is a UK link. Since the programme began, 30 people and companies have been convicted of corruption offences and almost £800 million of assets stolen from developing countries have been restrained, confiscated or returned to the developing countries.
I turn briefly to the questions that were raised during the course of the debate. I should say at the outset that if time does not permit for me to give all of the responses, of course I will write to follow up on them. My noble friend Lord McInnes asked whether regular interaction takes place between the FCO and Human Rights Watch. DfID continues to work closely with the FCO on anti-corruption and human rights issues, including with the main human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and the anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International. He asked what support we are giving in terms of country strategies. DfID country teams are working closely with HMG colleagues to implement country anti-corruption strategies. They are updating those strategies at the most appropriate time for the country context—for example, after elections—rather than in line with a UK publication timetable.
The UK is seeking to develop more cross-HMG country anti-corruption strategies as set out in the UK anti-corruption strategy published in December 2017. My noble friend asked about the anti-corruption strategy specifically for Iraq, an issue also raised by my noble friend Lord Robathan and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Alton. DfID country teams work closely with HMG colleagues on anti-corruption strategies in Iraq and I will write with further information on those.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, talked about the role of overseas territories and the Crown dependencies as financial centres and asked what is being done in that area. They are committed to global transparency standards such as the provision of information to law enforcement and for the automatic exchange of tax information. We expect the overseas territories to have fully functioning public registers by 2023.
My noble friend Lady Anelay raised the issue of anti-corruption measures in DRC. DfID’s public financial management accountability programme supports the use of public resources to enable better service delivery and more accountable government in DRC.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about Pakistan. He has been in regular contact about this issue and I know of his concerns. We are certainly not complacent and want to look into the situation carefully. DfID Pakistan takes a holistic approach to addressing corruption through various programmes including on education, health, taxation and economic growth. It addresses corruption by delivering programmes to engage citizens to demand better services in order to create more transparent, effective and accountable institutions. However, I am in the process of writing further on that particular issue.
My noble friend Lady Anelay also asked about aid for DRC. A robust planning process involving the relevant partners has been undertaken to determine the activities required to end Ebola. These activities have been worked into a single strategic plan that the UK and other donors are working on.
My noble friend Lord Robathan asked how we can ensure that overseas aid is being spent effectively. He made the point that Governments have prime responsibility for this. I commend the speech of the Secretary of State to the Wellcome Foundation last year. She pointed out that in future, one test we should have is that the UK Government should not step in where the domestic Government can and should be doing things themselves, such as providing clean water.
My noble friend Lady Stroud asked what steps we have taken to build anti-corruption institutions and e-systems in fragile states. Where possible, we work with Governments. DfID has programmes such as the Afghanistan Anti-Corruption Justice Centre, which I have already mentioned. The corruption centre helps to achieve our targets under sustainable development goal 16 on reducing corruption and illicit flows. Helping to reduce threats to our security is firmly in the UK’s national interest. The UK is proud of the global momentum we have built up to fight corruption, but we cannot be complacent. We will continue to work with our partners around the world to reduce corruption. This will build a fairer future for people in developing countries and a better future for the people of the UK.
Climate
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to declare a climate emergency.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not intend to rehearse the threats, challenges and opportunities presented by climate change, as these have been well covered in previous debates, but we know that climate change is real, it is here, it is now and we have to confront it. It cannot be dealt with tomorrow or the day after; it must be done today, every day of the year, and every year of every decade. It is the number one issue—not Brexit, not economic growth, not any of the other issues that we might feel passionate about.
My question today is whether the Government intend to treat the climate crisis with the urgency that it demands by declaring a climate emergency. We know from the world’s scientific community that fewer than 12 years are left to prevent 1.5 degrees of warming, which will cause huge problems for humanity—it is a massive threat. The Government’s policies and plans do not come close to meeting this deadline. An urgent and rapid global response is necessary, as has been recognised by 44 local authorities in the UK which have declared a climate emergency—that is since Carla Denyer’s motion in Bristol, with all those other councils following suit. Some 17,000 people have signed a petition on this issue, and thousands of young people across the country have been taking part in climate protests and school strikes to protect their future. And, of course, the campaign, Extinction Rebellion, and many other planet protectors are putting their bodies on the line to stop the disaster.
If we are to tackle the climate emergency, we must first call it a climate emergency—we have to acknowledge it. That would send out an essential signal to business, to industry and to the financial markets that our policies will be more ambitious and more stringent with time. Sending signals to the financial markets is crucial; fossil fuel companies and their reserves are heavily overvalued at the moment. There is a strong likelihood that we will see a fossil fuel crisis similar to the 2008 credit crisis once financial investors finally realise just how much of those fossil fuels have to stay in the ground.
That is why many people are calling for pension regulators to assess exposure to high carbon risk, for the Bank of England to factor in the carbon exposure of banks in its reserve requirements and for the London Stock Exchange to require all companies to make disclosure on fossil fuel risk. Pension funds, banks and other institutional investors have to be weaned off fossil fuels as a matter of urgency or their investments could go up in smoke.
There is no economic growth without the complex web of biodiversity that supports life on planet Earth. Climate breakdown will impact adversely on our ability to supply ourselves with water, food and safe shelter. It goes to the very heart of humanity’s safety.
The cumulative effect of CO2 means that it is not just a matter of hitting a target by 2030 or 2050. If we fail to act today, we have to do more tomorrow. If we fail to reduce CO2 now, the target for reductions in 2030 has to reduce even further to take into account our failures. Every failure of today’s generation imposes a new cost on the next generation. Today’s excesses are a cost that they have to pay.
It is a worldwide problem and we in the UK have to hit the brakes hard because of our historical legacy of the industrial revolution and the vast amount of CO2 that we import from other countries—we take that for granted and tend to ignore it. Everything has a cost somewhere to somebody. It does not matter whether it is toys for Christmas, circuit boards for our computers, or exotic fruits—everything we import has a CO2 burden.
No doubt the Minister will direct us to the Government’s Clean Growth Strategy as proof of how seriously they are taking climate change, but it is a very poor effort and extremely overoptimistic about the potential for change. Optimism is not enough. Optimism is often based in ignorance. We have only to compare the Government’s strategy to the scale of the government response to the investment in the project of delivering Brexit. The Clean Growth Strategy justifies inaction by looking at “a long term trajectory”, exploring “voluntary” standards and having aspirations,
“where practical, cost-effective and affordable”.
That is all absolute rubbish.
Meanwhile, Brexit is seeing billions of pounds ploughed into contingency planning, two-thirds of civil servants in some government departments are being told to drop everything to focus on this one issue, soldiers are ready to take over essential services, and several Bills have been rushed through Parliament alongside some 800 statutory instruments—all to fulfil a self-imposed deadline of two years, which has now been extended by a mere two weeks. If the Government can pull out all the stops to deliver on the so-called will of the people, I absolutely do not see why they cannot do the same for a climate emergency, which is the largest threat facing humanity.
Declaring the climate emergency is just the first step to treating the situation with the urgency it needs. The real policies come next. We need a green new deal which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and a low-carbon economy, to enhance the Committee on Climate Change and to carbon-proof all new laws and policies—and we need billions of pounds invested by the Government to do this. The Treasury must not be afraid to increase the public debt substantially to head off this emergency.
Local authorities that have declared climate emergencies should be given a fund of money to go carbon-neutral by 2030. They deserve recognition by the Government for doing the right thing. The Government should set high standards that are enforceable and enforced, such as all new homes being carbon-neutral, and all existing homes being retrofitted to modern standards.
We have the Queen’s Speech coming up in May and the comprehensive spending review this summer. Now is the time for the Government to announce several new Bills alongside billions of pounds of funding to cope with the climate emergency. I see people taking a lot of notes, which I am very happy about; I hope it translates into action.
I assure your Lordships that Brexit planning is a drop in the ocean compared to the effort that we must put in to tackling the climate emergency; our great-grandchildren probably will not care whether or not we left the EU, but their lives will be permanently altered by whether or not we handled the climate emergency.
My conclusion is simple: when we fail to act today, we have to work twice as hard tomorrow. The Government must declare a climate emergency, taking climate change seriously in a way they simply have not envisaged so far. I therefore urge the Government to act now—today.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate and on her introduction to it.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the average temperature of the Earth has warmed by an average of nearly one degree centigrade, and it is all the better for that. From the physics I studied at Cambridge, I am convinced that a part of that at least is attributable to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere, and that if we continue to burn fossil fuels, the temperature of the world—other things being equal—will continue to rise. We have to decide at what point the benefits of warming are exceeded by the costs, and whether those costs constitute an emergency.
According to the BBC website—we know we can trust the BBC, because it is so unconfident of its position that it will not allow anyone else to broadcast it—the principal danger threatening us as a result of rising temperatures is a rise in the sea levels as a result of melting ice caps. Certainly, if the ice caps melt it would raise sea levels by over 30 metres, which would, as the BBC adds, submerge many low-lying cities. However, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that it will take millennia for the ice caps to melt even if we continue using fossil fuels at a high and unabated rate. I cannot help feeling that, at least in the next centuries, we may harness fusion and have limitless energy, enabling us to cope with these problems or find other ways of solving them. They certainly do not constitute an emergency.
The BBC goes on to list other disasters which could be more imminent, such as flooding, droughts, storms and declining crop yields. All these things happen already. They may or may not be becoming more frequent but what is undoubtedly true is that fatalities from any of these events have been declining rapidly decade by decade. In developed countries such as ours, the risk of dying from any such natural event has declined dramatically and is extremely unlikely. It is most unlikely that any of us will suffer loss of life or even major damage to our property as a result of these things.
If we lived in developing countries it would be different; they are at far greater risk. People in poor countries are vulnerable to climate disasters because they are poor—and they are poor because they have not yet harnessed energy in the same way as we have to improve their living standards, their infrastructure and their environment. If we prevent them using cheap fossil fuels to develop, they will remain poor longer and exposed to these emergencies, these threats, these risks. That is what we threaten to do.
What we do in this country is negligible. If we stopped using fossil fuels and stopped eating meat tomorrow, that would reduce the total emissions in the world by 2%, less than one year’s growth in China. If we are to treat this as an emergency, we are talking about keeping poor people poor by stopping them using cheap energy. That is not worthwhile because it exposes them to emergencies. The real emergency, the real crisis, would be in developing countries if we were to follow the logic of the noble Baroness’s position and keep them in the undeveloped state in which not using fossil fuels and not making emissions would leave them.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing this short debate. I was thinking of talking about melting ice and the serious problems facing us and, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which I do not agree with—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I wish I had decided to do so. However, given the three-minute speech limit, I have decided to talk about something different: why the battle for public opinion on this matter has not yet been won. We have just heard an example of how it has not been won.
People have been conditioned to think of the natural environment, including climate, as a relatively benign thing which can be solved by technical fixes but this is not right. There are two reasons for this. One is that the climate of this planet has been relatively stable for some 6,000 or 8,000 years—perhaps a bit more. This has been absolutely crucial for the development of human existence as we know it. Farming settlements in the fertile crescent, the establishment of towns, trade—particularly in coastal towns and ports— learning, recreation and complex systems of government have led to relatively stable and complex societies, economics, geographies, networks and cultures. There is a general assumption that the environment is there and that it will be okay.
I also think that some people in academic circles and those who did A-levels and so on have an understanding of the natural world which is not quite as alarmist as it might be. Based on academic concepts from the 19th century onwards, natural change is an evolutionary and gradual, incremental thing. In biology, there was Darwinism and theories of evolution; there are geological concepts dating from pioneers such as Hutton, Playfair and Lyell, who were right at the time; there were geomorphological models based on the cycle of erosion developed by William Morris Davis; there were similar theories on climate and oceans and the structure of the continents; there are theories based on uniformitarianism—“The present is the key to the past”—associated with gradualism: that small incremental changes in climate and ecosystems, and all these other things, are the basis of change.
In the longer term, there is much truth in this, and it was a rational scientific alternative to ideas such as creationism, the great flood and other catastrophic ideas, but we all know of catastrophic changes. After all, the dinosaurs no longer rule the earth. At every physical scale—and scale is vital here—what pans out over time as gradual change often consists in practice of a vast number of catastrophic events, some small and some large, like landslides and the melting of ice. These can be global, continental and oceanic, regional, local and small. As human beings, we are at the bottom of the pyramid. Our civilisation and societies exist at small, local scales, and we are ourselves short-term people because we have not been here very long. Frankly, cata- strophic events, if we are not careful, will wipe us out.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, yesterday on social media, there was a small, viral video of two deer battling in the foreground, while far in the distance —as you could determine after watching it for a few seconds—a lion slowly emerged that, in one efficient movement, jumped on these fighting deer, killing them both. I draw a parallel: I feel as though the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, today is that lion, while many other debates in this building are the deer in the foreground.
I was determined to speak this afternoon, because I have been through—to use a word from my own sector, technology—a pivot over the last six months, partly on the back of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, and partly because of my partner’s establishment of a marine conservation charity, which has meant relentless tussles at home. I now feel it is not only the responsibility but the only moral thing that somebody with any small voice can do to constantly challenge and question why the climate emergency/climate crisis is not debated in public opinion in the way it should be, in the sectors I see, on the boards I sit on—certainly within technology, and with the inventors and innovators of the future. To give an example, I use Twitter, and after watching deer being devoured by a lion yesterday, I used it to ask what percentage of venture capital around the world was given to climate-related businesses. It would be bad if it was under 50% right now, because venture capitalists look to the future, imagining the solutions for the things we should be most concerned about. Imagine my horror at discovering that the percentage of venture capital investment in climate-based innovations has just decreased year on year. In Europe, it has gone from 3% to 2%, and in the US—get this—it has gone from 2.5% to 1%. This is a complicated number—there are investments across healthcare that you might determine are a climate issue, or possibly in fintech and so on—but even if it is 10 times that, it is half as much as it should be.
This is just one example of where it feels that we are wrestling deer in the corner, when the lion is approaching us from behind. As a technology innovator, I feel that we must demand more of the people that think they are inventing the future, because they are not inventing the future that I want to be a part of. We have to make sure that social media companies manage disinformation about the climate on their platforms; I declare an interest as a board member of Twitter. We have to demand that venture capital companies invest in solutions for everybody. This is fundamental, and these will not be challenges we can solve if we do not deploy all the weapons at our disposal. These are people who have proven in the past that they can solve complex problems, but the debate is not happening at the level that it needs to. That is why I could not support more whole- heartedly the notion of a climate crisis and emergency declared by the Government, because Governments lead and people follow, and that is what we need to encourage this Government to do.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on introducing this debate. Her enthusiasm for the subject is in inverse proportion to that of my noble friend Lord Henley on the Front Bench. I must remind him that he still has not replied to the questions I posed to him in the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on 24 January, despite having reminded him three times to do so.
The noble Baroness has raised an important matter and asks us to look at whether this is a climate emergency. The subject is hugely important but I will not follow her down the line of an emergency for two reasons. First, it is a climate choice. If you have a climate emergency, you may actually forget about the rest of the environment that is equally important: plastics, water, soil and all the things that she and I have been debating for the past couple of years. To make one factor within the overall environment an emergency rather demeans the others.
However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that the International Energy Agency reported that last year emissions of CO2 rose by 1.7%, which is the fastest rate of growth since 2013. The United States, having seen its emissions declining for some years, has experienced an increase. However, the main problem is in the Far East—China and India. What I am pleased about is that Europe’s emissions have fallen. Luckily, the UK is doing well in this area. We are a world leader and we have seen a fall of 42% in our production emissions from 1990s levels while still growing the economy by 70%. As my noble friend Lord Lilley said, growing the economy is important as the background to all this.
We must have more energy from renewable sources. I am glad that the Government have announced huge spending over the next decade on 30 gigawatts of offshore wind. That will produce a third of our electricity in 2030. The message must be sent out that we have to stop burning fossil fuels. When I was the Environment Minister, we were considered to be the dirty man of Europe. It is interesting to note that of the top 10 European emitters of carbon at the moment, not one is British. Seven firms are in Germany, which is supposed to be the clean man of Europe; now it is the dirty man. This is an important subject but it is not quite an emergency yet.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing this important debate. I agree with her completely that we do indeed have a climate emergency. It is not just a question of moving away from fossil fuels, or of empty slogans. I am thrilled that 44 local authorities have declared this issue to be an emergency. While I was at the Greater London Authority I ran the London Food Board. We declared London to be a hunger-free city and everyone signed up to that with great excitement. However, that was in 2008 and actually there are even more hungry people today, so these must not be empty words.
For any policy in local authorities or indeed in central government to be at all effective, it must not be put in a box. It has to stretch right across, whether it is a question of energy, plastics, the marine environment or whatever it might be. Perhaps I may give an example from the work we did in London. When we think about working an environment strategy into transport, we would probably just consider getting people off the roads, on to bikes and into public transport. However, we have to think a little more: put up living walls by busy road junctions; plant edible green walkways between estates and schools so that children can walk; grow food in parks and plant trees on busy roads; and fund schools, which takes us into the area of education and building. Schools should be given funding to plant gardens. We ran a scheme called Capital Growth through which we created 2,500 new community gardens in the four years leading up to 2012. That cost as little as £250 per garden but in the end we had 180,000 volunteers, and 200 acres of otherwise derelict land in this city became green spaces full of bees and other insects as well as people gardening. It was easy to do, but it is about will and leadership.
The scheme had all sorts of other good benefits, as is the case for a lot of environmental schemes. For instance, the police reported less need for policing in the area. There was a reduction in the rate of depression along with a reduction in the rate of crime. However, to do this, fantastic leadership is needed. Even though I went to work for his predecessor, I am the first to step forward to applaud London Mayor Sadiq Khan for the ULEZ initiative. You need to be tough and you need to be bold. In Singapore—not a state that I am necessarily going to say is a great place to live—when it was realised what was the matter with diesel cars, they were banned from one day to the next. We need that kind of bravery and visionary leadership.
I am thrilled that our metro mayors, just this afternoon, are being afforded greater responsibility over their own transport policies, because then they can start to make a difference. If we can all feel engaged from the ground up, we may be able to make a difference. If we show our politicians that we care about this and that it is indeed an emergency, then maybe it will move out of the box and into the middle of government debate where it affects every single law that we make.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for making this important debate possible. I draw attention to my interests in the register.
The natural world is our life support system. It provides our food, air and water, and cleans up our waste. However, it faces a complex and dynamic ecological crisis resulting from human activities, and climate change is but one symptom. Sir David Attenborough told the UN in December that,
“the collapse of our civilisations and extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon”,
while scientists tell us that we have only a short and closing window in which to act to limit this unfolding catastrophe. Despite the current attention-grabbing, high- octane constitutional drama of Brexit, this climate emergency is an infinitely greater threat and is the real crisis that we face. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported last October on the enormous increase in harm that 2 degrees of warming would do to the climate, including risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth.
The global poor are feeling, and will feel, the impacts of climate change most acutely. However, the implications will also be felt here in the UK, whether through forced migration from other regions or through disruption to our food supplies. Global temperatures are currently around 1 degree above pre-industrial levels. Within a handful of years we may face tipping points—such as an ice-free Arctic, which I have personally seen for myself is approaching—beyond which climate change may accelerate and impacts multiply, bringing unimaginable dangers. The IPCC report told us that we have just 11 years to complete, not begin, an unprecedented transformation to our infrastructure and lifestyles to decarbonise the economy and avoid climate breakdown. The good news is that halting climate change will bring us many other benefits, including warm homes, energy independence, a boom in green jobs, pleasant and healthy urban environments, affordable public transport, clean water and air, and the restoration of natural habitats.
Since the report’s publication, momentum has been building behind grass-roots movements such as Extinction Rebellion and the 1.4 million young people who last month joined school climate strikes worldwide, including several hundred in my home city of Bath, whom I warmly congratulate on their activism. They seek immediate environmental action proportionate to the enormous risks that we face. Last month my local council, Bath and North East Somerset, joined a rapidly growing group of UK local authorities—around 44 at the last count—to declare a climate emergency. With overwhelming cross-party support, my council also became one of a smaller group to set an ambitious target date of 2030 for its carbon neutrality. Councils demonstrating real leadership on this existential problem now require the full support of Parliament. The Government must acknowledge the scale and immediacy of this crisis and put forward a transformational plan for the future. They must also provide those authorities willing to step up to the challenge with powers and funds commensurate to the task.
Business as usual simply will not cut it. This truly is a climate emergency.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, it is true that the UK Government have been on the front foot on climate change and have commendably taken a lead internationally on the issue since the Paris agreement, but they still need reminding that the least developed countries are still suffering the worst effects and some—not just island states—face imminent threats from floods, drought and other disasters.
In 2018, we had some of the worst emergencies ever. We had some experience of it: the UK had unusual extremes of weather last year, and California’s autumn fires were catastrophic. But in the southern hemisphere, Kerala had its worst floods for more than 80 years last August, with more than 2.5 times the normal rainfall from the monsoon. More than 500 died and more than 1 million were forced from their homes, with 10,000 houses destroyed and roads damaged at a cost estimated at $3.5 billion. The warming of the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions is an obvious cause of such dramatic turns in the weather, and India is one of the countries that will suffer most.
South Africa, on the other hand, experienced three consecutive years of low rainfall, and Cape Town faced its worst drought ever a year ago. Taps ran dry in the city and residents were severely restricted. Again, scientists found that climate change made the drought three times more likely.
Argentina also ended its worst drought in 50 years last April, but the economic consequences for farmers were considerable. The soybean and corn harvests were down by 31% and 21%, and lost production cost Argentina $6 billion, plunging the country into recession. I am grateful to Christian Aid for providing those figures.
Very few people in Parliament or among the general public doubt that these major emergencies were linked to climate change, as has been reaffirmed at successive conferences. The Katowice conference in Poland made good progress last December towards implementing the Paris rulebook. In recent Westminster debates, the Government have sounded upbeat. One Minister has since even admitted that the UK will need to legislate for a net zero emissions target “at an appropriate point in the future”.
But the situation is urgent. According to Christian Aid, overall global emissions must reach zero—meaning that human activities absorb as much greenhouse gas as they release—by the middle of the century if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade, the target set in the 2015 Paris agreement. Next year, there will be an interim meeting in Chile, but the real decisions will have to be made very soon in Europe.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for securing this incredibly important debate. Anyone looking at our newspapers might think that the single most important issue facing the whole world was Brexit, but of course, far more urgent, with far greater risks to humanity, most particularly to developing countries, is climate change. Measures to cut carbon emissions are growing but at nothing like the rate needed if we are to tackle the problem in due time.
I first mention solar energy, because the sun has almost infinite energy, if only we could trap it. Yes, solar panels are cropping up all over the place, but two major obstacles stand in the way of significant use of solar energy: the problems of storage and distribution, as I am sure most noble Lords know. Research programmes in a number of countries are working on those two problems, but they are too small and not co-ordinated to achieve the speed of progress so desperately needed. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to enhance research in this vital field? It is far too important to leave to the private sector, but too many Governments are just leaving it to private companies. It must be government-led and co-ordinated.
The second area of potential breakthrough after solar, which I see as the absolute number one, is the use of hydrogen. I have received a helpful note from the Hydrogen APPG and wanted to convey a few of its main points. More than 30% of all UK carbon emissions come from domestic heating and cooking. Can we get that down to zero? We really need to. The H21 North of England report 2018 examined the potential for a large-scale conversion of homes and businesses from natural gas to hydrogen and found that such a conversion could, by 2050, achieve 17% of the Government’s carbon reduction target, set in the Climate Change Act 2008. No doubt we need to go faster than that, but it would be one hell of a step.
There is growing support from the Government for a large-scale hydrogen conversion project. For example, the Chancellor’s Spring Statement announced that the Government would explore options for decarbonising the gas grid. Can the Minister explain to the Committee what options the Government plan to explore, and over what timeframe? That sentence from the Chancellor reads as though he may not be doing very much at all, but it would be very interesting to know precisely what he has mind and how fast he plans to do it.
There are also significant benefits to a large-scale hydrogen conversion for the transport industry. What steps have the Government taken to convert cars, buses, lorries, trains, ferries or even aeroplanes to hydrogen use, and do they have a planned timeframe for such reforms?
It is of interest that the trade unions are supportive of the potential of hydrogen to create highly skilled jobs, especially in the north of England. That would be pretty helpful in the years ahead. The UK could become a world leader in hydrogen technology and a leading exporter of skills and technology. We can achieve such heights only if we get on with the changes so urgently needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this important, if short, debate.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has rightly asked us whether we see this as an emergency, and I put my hand up and say, “It absolutely is”. With this particular emergency, as with many national emergencies, there are lots of down sides in that there are all sorts of negative consequences to war, threats or security. Today, however, I want to go through all the positive things that come out of genuinely calling this an emergency.
First, even in conventional terms, we have economic growth. As we saw during the 2008 recession, the green sector was one that grew in 2017—those are the most recent figures. GDP growth rose by some 1.8%, but economic growth in the green sector was something like 7%. There are more or less 250,000 jobs just in the green growth and energy efficiency sector.
Clean air is one of the consequences of decarbonisation; King’s College London estimates that in recent years there have been some 36,000 premature deaths per annum because of dirty air. There are 2.5 million households still in fuel poverty, yet through proper efficiency programmes and the housing stock, we could eventually reduce that to zero. That would also help winter deaths, of which there are some 50,000 per annum. Indeed, with heatwaves these days, it is estimated that in the last couple of years there have been some 600 to 900 deaths due to excess heat. Obviously, figures have been far higher on the continent, which may show what is still to come.
We can reduce fuel bills, not just by increasing the energy efficiency of the housing stock, but by renewable energy now being cheaper than fossil fuels. Because of all this increased welfare, I hope we can increase national welfare but also reduce costs on the National Health Service. By doing all this, we are making a major move towards a circular economy, which means that the planet can start to exist within its own finite resources.
To come back to climate finance, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly mentioned the decline of venture capital and the restriction on it in this sector. I was interested to hear those figures. Having said that, a huge amount of money wishes to invest, and it is about finding those opportunities; maybe government, through the public sector, can help that to happen. France has produced sovereign bonds, which have been at coupon rates that are less than standard ones. All this would also provide the UK with climate leadership again, which we are starting to miss.
I will ask the Minister only the following question. On 2 May, the climate change committee will produce its report on what we should do to achieve only a 1.5 degree centigrade increase—reckless though even that is. Will the Government accept the committee’s recommendations, whatever they are?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for initiating today’s debate and challenging us to consider the climate emergency movement. It is more usual to apply the term “emergency” to specific events that everyone can recognise, to signal that an exceptional response is required. To apply it to the process of climate change underlines the urgency of the situation, to recognise that more extreme weather patterns are occurring across the world more frequently, and that emergency action is required to avert more catastrophic consequences, both numerically and in intensity.
While it is true that much progress has been achieved, that must not be a reason for self-congratulatory complacency. The climate emergency movement has highlighted the importance of setting a new policy framework across public institutions that recognises the urgency, sets specific tough but fair targets and relevant timeframes to prioritise policy responses and embed them in overarching governance arrangements, and to communicate this both nationally and inter- nationally.
Each organisational level of government must fulfil its responsibilities through relevant ranges of actions to reduce emissions and increase resilience. With more easily achievable low-hanging fruit having been plucked already, it is now imperative to redouble the UK’s national efforts to tackle the most intransigent areas of heating, gas decarbonisation and transport, including shipping. The Government’s official target is still to reduce carbon emissions by 80% below 1990 levels. With the IPCC’s recent report that recognises the tipping point of 1.5 degrees warming above pre-industrial levels, that target is likely to be breached between 2030 and 2050. Labour has recognised that this will require a net-zero emissions target, not a new cost-benefit analysis.
The pace of change must increase as the urgency is not being adequately addressed by this Government. Being science-led, Labour will tackle the structural change by resourcing a national transformational fund that will also address the behavioural change needed across society, encompassing waste, energy efficiency, transport and the environmental security of a circular economy. The scale of the response needed must be addressed at all levels of government, including internationally through international trade deals.
The estimated 1.5% fall in emissions seen in 2018 was the smallest drop recorded over the past six years. What now is the Government’s response to the Committee on Climate Change’s challenge that the Government are no longer on course even to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets? Will the Government now bring forward ambitious and credible proposals for reducing emissions for the lagging sector areas of transport and heat, and could they inform us of that today?
The Environmental Audit Committee recently stated that the Government are “coasting on climate change”. Does the Minister recognise that the pace of change must increase across all government departments to eliminate policy contradictions and mixed messages across government, such as those on fracking?
The UK needs a new green industrial revolution. Greta Thunberg and our schoolchildren are right to demand it, and the Government and the investment community need to resource it through environmental governance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for securing this debate, which has been of high quality, even if all speakers have been limited to a mere three minutes each. In fact, perhaps that made the quality even higher, I do not know; it has certain advantages.
I will make the point, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and to others who are worried that the debate is not happening, that the debate is very much happening. This might just be one very tiny, minuscule part of it, but we know—mention was made earlier of demonstrations by schoolchildren and others—that the debate is happening up and down the country. As other noble Lords put it when they talked about local authorities, it is happening at local authority level.
A number of questions were raised, and I will not be able to respond to all of them this afternoon. I have been criticised by my noble friend Lord Caithness, quite rightly, for failing to respond in a previous debate to his questions about the effect of the shifting of magnetic north and cosmic rays on global warning. I will write to him in due course, but he will recognise it is quite a difficult thing to respond to because there is not much evidence.
I also give an assurance to all those who spoke that the Government are aware of the threats posed by climate change, and that we respect the sense of urgency. We understand it, agree that there is an urgent need to do things, and accept that impacts are already being felt. The Government are responding, and we continue to demonstrate strong leadership worldwide—I will get on to that later on—to tackle it at home and abroad.
I will start with the IPCC report on climate change, and what our response will be. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change—the hottest days of the year are getting hotter, and minimum temperatures are getting milder. There is a clear trend, and I remind the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we have not always had the stable temperature he seems to think we have. I refer him to the late Middle Ages, when there were vineyards in the south of England. The same was true in Roman times, with a colder spell in between. After the Middle Ages warm period, we had the mini-ice age of the 17th and early 18th centuries—so the climate has always changed, but something is happening at the moment. We agree that there is a trend and that something needs to be done; and we know that, without action, rising temperatures will result in even more serious effects.
For those who think we have been slow off the mark, following the IPCC’s report last October, within a week we had requested advice from the Committee on Climate Change on the implications of the Paris agreement for the UK’s long-term emissions target. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that when it comes out in May—I was not sure of the precise date but he said 2 May, which I think is right—we will respond as appropriate. He would not expect me to say at this point that we will accept everything the committee says. It would be a rash Government, possibly a Liberal Government, who would take that line. As an aside, I do welcome his genuinely positive approach to what the Government are doing—and I think one can take a positive approach.
The IPCC report offered a stark warning that our current rate of warming could see us reaching 1.5 degrees, possibly as soon as 2030. That would have devastating effects—it could do a great deal to our infrastructure, food, water supplies and so on. It went on to point out that up to 90% of coral reefs could be lost, with irreversible effects such as melting ice sheets that would continue to have impacts for centuries to come. The report is a rallying cry for Governments around the world to do something—to innovate, to invest and to raise ambition. It is therefore right that we should follow the scientists. As all noble Lords have made clear, we are now witnessing a groundswell of public concern. There is an increased sense of urgency from people all around the country—I mentioned the recent demonstration by schoolchildren—and more vocal demands for action.
The Government absolutely share their mission to solve this global challenge. To do so, we are taking action both domestically and internationally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked us—because there is no point in us just doing things domestically if we do not try to provide the international lead that I believe we can and will. I shall touch on both of those.
On domestic action, our carbon targets are among the most stringent in the world and have provided a blueprint for climate action internationally, with elements of our framework emulated by many other leading nations. We should be proud of our record, which was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester when he stressed that we have reduced emissions since 1990 by 42% while—this is the important thing—growing the economy by 72%.
But there is more to do. In 2017, we published our Clean Growth Strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, called it “a very poor effort”. I have to say that I do not agree. The important thing to remember about the strategy is that “growth” appears in its name. As I have said, we have seen a cut in our emissions by 42% while continuing to grow our economy by 72%. The strategy set out our policies and proposals for meeting future carbon budgets and the illustrative pathways for the 2050 target. It explains just how the Government are investing more than £2.5 billion to support low-carbon innovation from 2015 to 2021, building on the UK’s world-leading expertise in areas such as offshore wind—where we have seen the price of offshore power come right down—and electric vehicles.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about research that we are doing in that area. It is important to emphasise what has been achieved. For example, the noble Baroness will see what a success story solar has been over the years as a result of government intervention, with deployment and cost reductions exceeding expectations to the point where two large-scale projects have already deployed without subsidy from the Government, and the planned construction of two more large-scale, subsidy-free solar projects has recently been announced. That is as a result of the investment that government have made and the encouragement and support that we have given—again, we have seen the price drop. I cite these just as examples; there is much more research in other areas.
The noble Baroness asked about storage, which I agree is the vital thing to address if we are to make renewables such as solar and wind, which are necessarily variable, of great use. Yes, research on hydrogen has been going on. I have seen some serious work being done by Heriot-Watt University in Orkney, where they are beginning to power ships using hydrogen. I also went to the Clyde to see some new CalMac ferries being built that will be powered by hydrogen. There is a future for hydrogen there; there is possibly a future for hydrogen in cars. Electricity might take over—I do not know—but all avenues need to be explored, and the Government will play their part in that. We are certainly exploring hydrogen’s potential to deliver against our own clean growth aims.
I see that I am running out of time so, rather than going on with examples of the sort of research that the noble Baroness asked about, I will quickly move on to say a little about the international position. I am very grateful for what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said about welcoming our international role and the role that we can play. As I said, what we do in the UK on our own is not going to make much difference. We believe that the United Kingdom has played a key role internationally in demonstrating leadership through its domestic action, through climate diplomacy and through financial support, and that our world-leading economic, scientific and technical skills are shaping the global debate. I am proud to say that United Kingdom negotiators played a central role in securing the Paris agreement in 2015, while the UK scientific community was at the heart of the international effort behind the IPCC’s special report.
Our world-leading climate science programmes are helping developing countries to mitigate and adapt. We are fully aware of the concerns that the noble Earl and others raised about the problems that other countries are having. We are providing at least £5.8 billion between 2016 and 2020, helping over 47 million people to cope with the effects of climate change. This September the United Kingdom will lead the resilience stream at the UN Secretary-General’s climate action summit. Our ambition is to drive transformational change in the way that we think and take decisions on resilience, enabling people and the planet to adapt and cope with shocks and stresses.
I conclude by reiterating the determined action that the United Kingdom Government are taking to tackle climate change both domestically and abroad. Our sense of urgency is real and the challenge that we face is great. The IPCC report made that clear, and it is necessary for us to build on that momentum, acting now to build a brighter future for ourselves and for our children.
Historic Rights of Way
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress that has been made in the registration of historic rights of way and of the benefits of extending the cut-off date for their registration.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this debate is about historic rights of way: those that have never been registered but existed before 1949. I want to talk about the procedural and technical problems involved in historic rights of way, so I will not talk about their value and so on. I assume for the purposes of this debate that that is a given and people do not need an explanation of why they are such a good thing. I thank in particular the British Horse Society, the Ramblers, the Open Spaces Society and the Trails Trust for the wonderful briefings they have sent. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Open Spaces Society. I also thank everybody who has put their name down to speak in this debate.
It all started with the CRoW Act in 2000, so I decided to look up what I said in the debate on the Bill as it went through the Lords. On 26 June 2000, which seems a remarkably long time ago, I was talking about resolving conflict over local rights of way et cetera. This, I said,
“must, essentially, take place at local level. As it stands, the Bill relies too much on national quangos sorting things out when what is really required is for local people on the ground to negotiate with each other in a sensible way”.—[Official Report, 26/6/00; col. 671.]
I do not believe we thought at the time that nearly 20 years later we would still be talking about the problems.
Sections 53 to 56 of the CRoW Act set out the process for claiming old, unclaimed historic rights of way—crucially, with a cut-off date of 1 January 2026. Any that have not been claimed by then will cease to exist for ever, although with the possibility under Section 56 of an extension by regulations to 2036.
The passage I have just quoted was, in retrospect, a bit naive. Things are not quite as simple as I thought at the time—but we have seen in the system for claiming historic rights of way the worst of all worlds: national inaction and delays, half-hearted efforts to get things going, followed by more inaction and delays. Local authorities have sometimes tried and sometimes been unwilling; they are increasingly unable to cope because of financial cuts. There is an increasing reliance on local groups, charities and volunteers to sort this out. They are wholly underresourced, frustrated and dismayed by the hopelessness of the task.
According to a freedom of information request from the Ramblers, 4,400 or more applications are stuck in the system. What happened? First, the Countryside Agency set up the Discovering Lost Ways project in 2004. That was closed down three years later, with four new rights of way registered. In 2008, Natural England set up the Stakeholder Working Group on Unrecorded Public Rights of Way, a body which consisted of local authorities, user groups, landowners and management interests, and really did get people together to thrash things out. It produced the Stepping Forward report in 2010 with 32 recommendations. Five more years went by before the Deregulation Act 2015 legislated for many of the recommendations in Stepping Forward. Another five years have now gone by and nothing has happened. We are still waiting for that part of the Deregulation Act to be brought into play through regulations.
I was going to quote what the Minister in the Commons said about the Act in 2000 but the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is here and she can give evidence.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I shall intervene only briefly. I was Chief Whip in the Commons when the legislation went through, and I assure everyone here that it was not anticipated that there would be a difficulty within that timeframe. It is the problems that arose later, particularly the pressures on local government, that have got us into the position today where it is vital that we look at the timescale again.
Lord Greaves
I am very grateful for that intervention in person, as it were. In evidence that it has sent to us, the Trails Trust says that the Countryside Agency said in 2010 that there were 16,100 kilometres of unrecorded rights of way and that another 36,000 kilometres of historic route existed and needed investigating. That was just in England; there were more in Wales. So there is a huge problem.
There is a huge backlog involving competing local authorities with diversion and other public footpath orders, enforcements, disputes, commons claims and disputes and so on. In addition, the original definitive maps from 1949 vary hugely in quality and accuracy. Some are hopeless and some are good. Even when they record a route, as I know well from examples in my own area in the Pennines, a bridleway can simply stop at the parish boundary and turn suddenly into a footpath where bridleway rights are not allowed. Sometimes they simply stop where the person who was doing the surveying back in the early 1950s changed over to someone else.
The situation is hopeless. I am grateful for the large number of letters that I have had from people on the ground all over the country—from Yorkshire, Burnley, Rochdale, Northumberland, Bromley, Rossendale, Cambridgeshire and Wales—explaining how hopeless it is. I shall quote from one or two of them to show what the position is. Cosima Towneley, chairman of the Burnley Bridleways Association and chairman of the National Federation of the Bridleway Associations, says:
“The Government—of which ever hue—gallops towards the Cut Off but has failed to undertake a single action promised … Where is the 2015 report which should have given an indication as to the viability of projects such as Discovering Lost Ways … Where is the support at Local Authority level to carry the huge backlog of claims and the enquiries they generate through to implementation on the ground?”.
From Northumberland, Susan Rogers writes:
“Even when a decision has been made for an order to add or to upgrade a path, there can be a long delay before the legal department of the council makes the order … At the moment if there is an objection, even an irrelevant one, the order has to be sent to the Secretary of State for confirmation”.
And so on. There is a huge amount of frustration and dismay from people who are doing tremendous work at their own expense and in their own time.
At the request of the Minister, I sent her some questions that I would like the Government to answer. I shall finish by reading them out, if there is time. Do the Government stand by the commitment given in 2000 at the time of CRoW to make every effort to register all historic rights of way before the cut-off date? Do the Government agree that Discovering Lost Ways resulted in the loss of almost a decade in the registration of historic rights of way that has not been made up since? Do they agree that the stake- holder working group set up in 2008 saw a welcome coming together of different interests and that its Stepping Forward report in 2010 represented a practical means of achieving the intentions of CRoW, but the fact that the 32 recommendations have still not been enacted makes the 2026 target date impossible to achieve? When do the Government intend to bring into effect the 2015 Deregulation Act containing these recommendations?
In view of the evidence of the failure to achieve the intentions of CRoW and the provision in Section 56 to allow an extension to 2031, will the Government now make the necessary regulations for the extension? Do they understand that there are thousands of volunteers who are struggling thanks to the time and costs involved, the complexity of the system and the inadequate and seriously reducing resources of local highways authorities to cope? If so, what further assistance will they provide for that process?
I have an additional question: what resources do the Government think are needed to achieve the CRoW aims by 2036 or 2031, and how will they provide them? In view of everything that has happened and of their own failure, will the Government now stand by the historic position of “once a highway, always a highway”, and seek to repeal Section 53 and related sections of the CRoW Act?
I have reached my cut-off date. I look forward to the answers to my questions.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am a great supporter of footpaths. I owe them a great debt of gratitude because they played an important part in my rehabilitation since my accident. I would say only that I am saddened by the condition of some footpaths and even more saddened by the amount of rubbish left on them by people who ought to follow the country code slightly better.
If you think it is taking a long time to get a definitive answer on Brexit, let us talk about rights of way. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on raising this. It is the 70th anniversary of the legislation to introduce a definitive map of rights of way and we are still arguing and debating about it. That is a nonsense. How right the Government were to bring forward a cut-off date when they did.
I will go off on a slight tangent. People must not get the impression that we are short of footpaths in this country. There are over 94,000 miles of footpaths here and that is being added to regularly. In particular, at the end of February, another 16 miles of new path was added to the English coastal path. I congratulate Natural England on the work it is doing and I look forward to seeing that path completed next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises an important point. As I said, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have been battling on this for 70 years. I remember dealing with it as a land agent in the 1970s and it is a hugely complex, expensive and time-consuming task. The noble Lord was absolutely right to point out some of the difficulties. Councils are spending thousands of pounds and committing a lot of resources to try to solve the problem. On the other side of the coin, where there might be historical rights of way, landowners and involved parties have to defend situations that are not terribly relevant. When they end up in judicial review or in court, they are proved not to be rights of way. That is a waste of time and money.
As a footpath walker, I do not want to walk through somebody’s farmyard. It is bad for disease and bad for the farm. There can be hazards. If I am taking my grandchildren on a walk, I certainly do not want a tractor coming round the corner. We must be able to divert footpaths quicker. There is no doubt that some landowners have been harassed about this in the past.
Getting footpaths diverted is part of what the Government want to do under the new proposals. I ask my noble friend: when will these new proposals come in? When will the Deregulation Act 2015 be fully implemented? The whole system needs to be sped up; the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is absolutely right. I want to ask another question. Will my noble friend confirm that she will not accept bicycles being used on footpaths? There is a push by Cycling UK to open all footpaths to bicycles. Footpaths are footpaths; they are sometimes used by disabled or slightly disabled people such as me, and I do not want bicyclists running me over on a footpath. It is bad enough on a pavement. I hope she will be very firm on that.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for sponsoring this discussion. I declare conflicts: I am a farmer in Scotland with rights of way involved. I fail to understand why public access to footpaths, rights of way, bridle-paths and so on should ever be restricted, if they are legitimate. They are sometimes restricted by barbed wire and by having to register by a specific date.
This is about an extension. We let the pathways that we had historically be covered with Tarmac as the horse became redundant. Many of the networks involved in those pathways have subsequently been lost. The 1949 maps, as we have heard, are frequently inadequate and unhelpful. Recording these rights of way is vital. Ramblers and riders do not want Tarmac. The routes are often contested, as we have heard. The public should be able to access up-to-date digital maps, and constantly be involved in improving them.
Public access to these routes is anyway enshrined in government policy. We have heard just now from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about the farm steward- ship schemes that are coming along and, I too, would like to know the detail. It does not seem to me contentious that these are an important national resource. Fundamentally, therefore, why have a cut-off date at all?
Where is the information? Why should it be so difficult? We know that the resource made available around 19 years ago was consumed by consultants to a large degree, rather than actually helping establish and identify rights of way. Much of this information is buried. It lies in estate maps, on estate office walls, and will never be revealed. It is in libraries, family archives, parish council records, local authority records, old diaries and books. This should not be time-limited. This information is going to emerge as time goes by, and as we have discovered in the past 10 years, increasingly it has been the job of volunteers rather than any organised resource. We know the funding problems of local authorities; that has made matters worse. We have heard that some 4,400 applications are currently awaiting registration. Some of those will be contentious. I cannot see how this will all be done within the timetable without the extension—and even with the extension I question the wisdom. We should remove the deadline.
I want to say something on behalf of the horses before I finish; they cannot speak for themselves. They are the ones who have lost their access. I have heard from the British Horse Society that some 3,000 horses were injured in accidents on roads in the last few years. Of those horses, 340 died, with 40 riders or handlers also killed. These were traffic accidents, and I am sure that many of them could have been avoided if the bridle paths were a joined-up network, which once upon a time they were.
I conclude with a request to remove the deadline—or a question to the Government on why there should be a deadline. I fail to understand the wisdom of that when the information will continue to surface as the years go by, to the great benefit of the public.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for securing today’s debate, for setting out the issues so clearly, and for his tireless advocacy of public access and rights of way.
Between 1993 and 2005, I was a county councillor in Suffolk and, for most of that time, I chaired the public rights of way committee, so I have got quite some form in this area. I remember reading a summing up by Lord Denning in which he said that nothing excites an Englishman so much as a footpath—I have always thought that said a lot about English men.
The cut-off date for claiming these historic rights of way might have seemed a good way off at the time the legislation went through, but it is now coming into the near horizon. There are two points I wish to make. The first concerns the reliance on the voluntary sector to make sure that the claims are made before the cut-off date. Groups such as the Ramblers do, and always have done, an amazing job, but they are volunteers, with all the limitations of time, money and expertise that that entails. There is a very strong reliance on local groups. Admittedly, they all know their own areas very well but, like all voluntary groups, their capacity will ebb and flow over time, with more or fewer members and so on. I just do not think it is right that the capacity of the volunteers should determine whether an ancient right of way is extinguished—that just does not feel right to me.
My second concern is around the capacity of local government to deliver within this timeframe. It is well known that council finances are now at breaking point. The legal teams that have to deal with public rights of way claims are now often part of more generalist teams, and they have to compete with areas such as child protection, which—absolutely naturally—take priority. As we have heard, the current caseload is around 4,500. I suspect that, by 2026, the backlog will be so enormous that it will pretty much negate the whole idea of providing certainty for landowners—this will just drag on for decades. Therefore, there should be common cause rather than pitting one side against the other.
I have a final point to make on local authority budgets. The evidence base for historic rights of way is often found within documents such as tithe maps, enclosure awards and so on, many of which are held in local archives. Local archives themselves are coming under enormous pressure as council budgets are squeezed. I am a board member of the National Archives and we have oversight of all this. In some councils, the situation is very serious. One contingency that many are looking at is a significant reduction in the opening hours of local archives, which would make it even more difficult for local voluntary groups to gather the evidence that they need.
Under the existing legislation, the Secretary of State can extend the cut-off date by five years, and that leeway was put into statute with a purpose. I believe that, with the points that have been made, and to which I have added—the situation in local government, the absence of the secondary legislation and the collapse of the Discovering Lost Ways project—a very good case has been made for delay and, preferably, an entire review.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing this debate. I declare my interests as set forth in the register as both a farmer and a landowner. I am a member of the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers’ Union, and I am an avid walker. I am also happy to state that, as far as my own property is concerned, I do not have and never have had any contentious issues or arguments relating to rights of way, of which we have many being located in the Chilterns. We welcome responsible walkers and riders, who often help us by reporting incidents of sheep worrying and other anti-social behaviour.
Like Brexit, public access creates a vast amount of heat, depending on which side of the fence you sit, and often very little light, which is evidenced by the weighty House of Lords Library briefing and all its references. In my view, the best way forward in these circumstances is to realise that no one has a monopoly of right and that only in a spirit of compromise can these contentious issues be resolved.
As noble Lords know, all the interested parties endorsed the coalition Government’s proposal that all unrecorded footpaths and bridleways created before 1949 cannot be recorded after 1 January 2026. Not unexpectedly, since then, with cuts to local authority budgets and with the demands of Brexit, the resources available for this process have diminished, causing much frustration.
However, we are where we are and, bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect world, we need to reflect hard on the likely benefits of extending this interminable and expensive process, as well as the harm that is being caused to innocent owners faced with unexpected and at times vexatious legal challenges over their previously unencumbered registered land. I would like to make five short points in favour of maintaining the existing timetable.
First, agreeing that the current cut-off date stays in place leaves unaffected routes already used by the public and in no way limits access granted by rights of way provision.
Secondly, we can then move on to better understand what rights of way look like across the country and ensure that they are properly preserved and maintained.
Thirdly, the cut-off process allows for reform to the administrative process of rights of way claims. Where currently decisions can take years, if not decades, the new system should take a matter of only weeks.
Fourthly, this provides much-needed clarity to property owners and protects them from the appalling situation where a claim is suddenly made for an historic unused right of way to be made on their land.
Finally, the new system after the cut-off date will also take into account present-day uses. The current archaic system will not easily allow footpaths to be diverted to avoid such unattractive and dangerous features as slurry lagoons. Walkers and farmers will be the winners from a more flexible system. We have all heard of the unintended horror cases, such as a livestock farmer in East Anglia who has owned his farm for more than 50 years and carefully maintains existing rights of way on his land, who suddenly faces the prospect of a byway in the middle of his farm buildings. Within living memory, there has been no public path on this route and no public use of it. This claim would ruin his business, as there can be no gates or other barriers on a byway.
Let us bring this whole contentious issue to an end in 2026 by creating certainty and properly maintained public paths in the interests of both the general public and property owners. Can the Minister give us that assurance?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving us the chance to debate this important topic— an eternal topic, as several noble Lords have said. I declare an interest as a member of the Ramblers; I undertake long-distance walks each year—not like my noble friend Lord Bates, who does serious long-distance walking, but I expect to clock up 100 to 150 miles this year. As the Ramblers point out in their briefing, along the way we will stay in pubs, use restaurants, and, occasionally, if we are too exhausted, get a taxi to take at least our luggage if not us. The supplementary income walkers give to the countryside community is very important, and I look forward to seeing more of the countryside on my way from Land’s End to John O’Groats. I also declare an interest by proxy: my wife, my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, is a committed horsewoman and a member of the British Horse Society.
This is an important but narrow topic, and I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have said. It seems to me that the argument for extending the cut-off date is, as they say in the trade, a slam-dunk proposition. We have heard from noble Lords about the delays along the way in the handover from the Countryside Agency to Natural England and in the implementation of the Deregulation Act. That seems a very good reason why those years should be added to the period before it comes to an end. It must surely be public policy to encourage our fellow citizens to exercise more, and how better to do this than walking on the footpaths, seeing the countryside and its flora and fauna at first hand rather than through the window of a motor car?
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, he is wrong to suggest that we should stick to the cut-off date. As I have already said, the delays in implementing the legislation should give us additional time at the end, and, as the Ramblers point out, more than 4,000 applications are already in process. No matter how strict a view one takes, these need to be taken into account when we look at any end date for the legislation.
In the few minutes I have, I want to look at the position from the other end of the telescope—in fact, from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington: the position of the owner of the land which the footpath or bridleway will cross. I undertook for the Government an investigation into what was holding up the development and growth of small charities. I produced a report called Unshackling Good Neighbours. One of the most important issues stopping the growth of charitable activity was the lack of, improper use of, or inability to get, insurance. There is an application here when we come to look at the opening up of bridleways and footpaths. In that report, we had examples of people who had had a fete in their garden, at which somebody fell over a guy rope and they got sued.
When farmers open up bridleways, it starts with a few horses and a few walkers; then you get more walkers and a few cyclists; then you get a lot of cyclists and then motor-bicyclists; and then, finally, you get off-the-road vehicles. I therefore much associate myself with the question put by my noble friend Lord Caithness about ensuring that footpaths are used appropriately. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about that. What happens when you get that mixed use of traffic is that a horse shies and runs into a group of walkers, and then the landowner suddenly finds himself in the firing line.
There are issues here of usage and priority, and of consideration and courtesy. It may be that somewhere along the way we should think about a new code of behaviour to deal with and reconcile these interests. Many of your Lordships have experienced the satisfaction, thrill or sense of achievement when, having sweated up some hill to reach the top, one can see the beauty of Britain laid out before one. We should not allow these opportunities to be denied to our fellow citizens.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on securing this debate, and declare my interests as a landowner, a Local Government Association vice-president, a property professional and chairman of a body known as the Rights of Way Review Committee. I pay tribute to those who attend that committee’s meetings to seek consensus, despite some opposed standpoints, but I have to say that our work is on hold. At a risk of covering things that have been raised already, here I will express my personal views.
My starting point is to affirm the importance of our rights-of-way system to users and, perhaps not so obviously, to the businesses—mine included—that provide services along the way. It is a critical social and national tourist asset, with no better recommendation of its importance than that contained in the report Stepping Forward and the simplification proposals that followed in 2012.
It is self-evident that not all of the network is useful or convenient. Despite significant advances, it suffers from underfunding, poor conditions, bad signage, discontinuity, inadequacy for the range of current users and a sclerotic legal structure. The equally obvious need for policy consensus is still hampered by polarised views, conflict and lengthy arguments, the tragic and avoidable ruination of some rights, and the deprivation of rights for others—this is all sucking resources from other important work. Local authorities are still forced into costly technical battles based not on current or future needs but often on claimed usage from long ago, when people walked to work or church and drove their livestock to market. Yet that remains the basis of the lost ways and many such definitive map modifications that follow: hence the need for some sort of cut-off.
Caseloads grow, partly, as we have heard, because some post-1949 work incorporated errors and omissions. It was also not flexible enough to meet modern requirements, never mind the local government spending constraints. Seemingly only in the national parks do rights of way have adequate priority or anywhere near appropriate management or funding. This does not translate into modern green commuting, safe routes to school, or facilities for urban fringe dwellers; nor does it cater for—or segregate, for that matter—the wide range of recreational users of our linear routes and open access areas, let alone for people with infants in buggies or mobility scooters.
My insights do not reveal an easy way forward. Genuinely held viewpoints are too often based on narrow, inflexible principles that stand in the way of compromise, often to the point where conceding anything becomes an existential threat to its proponents. This drains the lifeblood from reasoned dialogue on the future and stagnates progress. The huge costs of implementing the CROW Act 2000 and the disproportionately small results on the ground are another case in point. Yet there is space enough in this realm to satisfy reasonable aspirations if we could bypass dirigiste principles and obduracy, with their huge costs and delays, and replace the concept of rights with one of consensual facility.
The object must surely be to protect and enhance the best of our rights-of-way system, rationalise and improve coherence, avoid conflicts, and allow routes to be amended or created, with redundant ones being closed. Even after the cut-off, the lodged claims to date will still need to be dealt with, and it is arguable that the definitive modification arrangements are no longer fit for purpose. Failing movement on the Deregulation Act 2015 proposals, might it not be better if it was all taken out of its legalistic arena and put in the sole control of some other non-partisan statutory body with a remit based on need, network coherence, fair balance, conflict reduction and cost benefit? Much of the private and taxpayers’ money spent on historical research and public inquiries might then be directed to infrastructure improvements, eliminating the more severe landowner risks and doing a power of good for the general public, tourism and the economy.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for securing this important debate and for setting out the case so well. Rights of way are very dear to the public’s heart, if not necessarily to the landowners. I declare an interest in that there is a footpath running along the edge of our garden and within our boundary. Currently, it is used by children playing hide-and-seek, and by ramblers once a year.
Towards the end of my time on Somerset County Council, I was a member of the environment committee, which met once a month. Not every meeting contained an application to put a right of way on the definitive map. If there was one, often a site visit would have taken place earlier in the month. We also had written evidence, in addition to the views we may have gleaned when we were out on site. All of this was six to 12 years ago, when the rights-of-way department was small and the offices were overworked. At that time, there was a five-year backlog on rights-of-way applications. As one of those contacting me eloquently said: “By the time the application comes forward, many of those who would have given evidence will have died”.
Given the Government’s drive to make us all healthier and most of the public’s wish to embrace this ethos, it would seem extremely short-sighted not to put some investment into ensuring that rights of way are fully investigated and not lost forever. Relying on volunteers is unsustainable, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market have indicated. I have received interesting briefs from a range of organisations, all saying that the deadline of 2026 will cause a huge loss of potential access for the public to the countryside. Many give examples of how difficult it is to provide the necessary proof that a bridleway or footpath ever existed over a disputed route, as has been demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
If the 2026 deadline is adhered to, I cannot see how the promises in the Government’s 25-year environment plan to create new green infrastructure will be delivered. Would the Minister care to comment on this? As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, in 2010, the Countryside Agency estimated that there were 16,000 kilometres of unrecorded rights of way in England, with 1,500 in Wales, and a potential 36,000 kilometres of historic routes that existed and needed investigating. The lack of local authority funding impacts on route maintenance and definitive map work. This means that the grass routes which the horse industry uses is severely threatened. This is an activity which attracts a high proportion of women, girls, children, disabled people and older people, and because of its rural nature, it is a big contributor to the rural economy.
If the cut-off date of 2026 remains, it should be only with the agreement that all existing recorded rural footpaths be made equally accessible to the non-motorised user groups—equestrians, cyclists and walkers—and I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this. Many children wish to ride their bicycles to school, but the roads are not safe to do so. If byways and bridleways could be made available over green lanes, they could enjoy exercise safely. It is not necessary to design rights of way as though they were super-highways costing thousands of pounds.
This has been a fascinating debate. It is obvious from everything that has been said that there are differing opinions about whether there should be a cut-off date or not. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, in 2007, the Discovering Lost Ways project recorded only four lost ways in one county and had to be abandoned at a cost of £8 million; what a chronic waste of money.
There are areas of the country such as Cornwall with a vast number of paths to investigate. Walkers spend more than £6 billion a year supporting 24,000 full-time jobs, while the economic value of the equestrian sector stands at £4.3 billion. The Government would be unwise to ignore this economic impact. Surely the Minister will accept that it would be better to abandon the 2026 deadline and think again.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for tabling this debate and for reminding us of this looming deadline. As other noble Lords have done, I should declare an interest as the president of Friends of the South Downs, which does fantastic work campaigning to protect and preserve the landscape of the South Downs National Park and providing a huge range of guided walks on its footpaths and bridleways.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced the cut-off date of 2026 to register historic rights of way. At the time it was a ground-breaking piece of legislation which created the right to roam on common land and opened up access to 3 million acres of mountains and moorland. I am very proud of my party’s record in championing the right to roam. It built on the foundations of Labour’s National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which took the bold step of creating 10 national parks with extended public access to the countryside. This month, we will be participating in a commemoration on Kinder Scout of the mass trespass that led to the legislation being passed 70 years ago. We have made a great deal of progress and have much to celebrate.
However, as my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton made clear, when we included the cut-off clause in the 2000 Act, I do not think that we anticipated the consequences today. As noble Lords have said, we are now in danger of hitting the 2026 deadline with the job half done. First, we should recognise that walkers are already faced with huge challenges in exercising their rights. It is estimated that 9% of the existing network is impassable, blocked off or unstable. Rather than extending their rights over historic footpaths, for many walkers there is a battle to retain what they already have. Secondly, the task of identifying the missing historic routes has proved to be much more complicated than was first imagined. Records are incomplete or contradictory and subject to local folklore which is often difficult to prove. They have also proved on occasion to be hugely controversial, with planning applications, disputes and legal challenges all too often causing delay.
Thirdly, for historic rights of way to be rescued and re-established, local authorities are required to step up to the mark by investigating claims and dealing with objections before a footpath can be officially recognised. As the deadline grows near and receives more publicity, the number of claims has been increasing at the very time when local authority resources are being cut to the bone. Moreover, if it is difficult and costly for local authorities, it is even more problematic for individuals wishing to make a claim. You have to gather evidence for the continued use of a path over 20 years and find sufficient witnesses to verify its use. The challenge for individuals and groups is enormous.
In these circumstances, it seems only right that we should revisit the 2026 deadline. As noble Lords have said, historic rights of way come to light for many different reasons and at many different times as land use changes and more historic records are unearthed. You cannot put a time limit on that. It would be a real setback to our heritage if Defra does not take this opportunity to revisit the deadline. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is indeed her intention.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, our unique rights of way network is precious. The benefits go far beyond the simple necessity of getting from A to B. Access to the natural environment improves our mental and physical health and provides opportunities for recreation and tourism, as noted by my very energetic noble friend Lord Hodgson. It can even combat loneliness and bind communities together.
My noble friend Lord Caithness said that he feels that there are 94,000 miles of recorded rights of way. My notes say that in England there are around 117,000 miles, so he is right that we are not short of rights of way. They are part of our heritage and must be safeguarded so that future generations can enjoy them too. In order for them to persist, we must have a record of rights of way as they exist now. The rights of way reform project is a key part of providing certainty on where rights of way exist and of providing a streamlined and better process for recording rights of way.
The legal record of rights of way is currently incomplete. This causes uncertainty for users and for landowners on whose land the right sits. Furthermore, the process for amending the legal record is complex. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 made provision to complete the legal record of rights of way by setting a cut-off date in 2026—seven years from now. At that date, historic rights of way, meaning those which existed before 1949, will be extinguished, but only if they are not recorded on the definitive maps. A Natural England project known as “Discovering Lost Ways” was set up in 2001 to record historic routes before this cut-off date.
In light of the complexities of recording rights of way, a review of the “Discovering Lost Ways” project in 2008 concluded that a fresh look at the system was needed to enable the definitive maps to be updated before the cut-off date. A stakeholder working group was convened, formed of a balance of local authorities, user groups, landowners, the NFU, the British Horse Society, the LGA and many others. In its 2012 report Stepping Forward the group put forward a number of proposals on which Defra consulted. Defra officials then began to work with the group on a package of secondary legislation to implement its proposals, taking into account both the broad consensus and the range of views held by different people within the group. The group works well and in a spirit of compromise. That is so necessary, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
The proposed legislation will bring into effect provisions from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Deregulation Act 2015. It will improve and streamline the process of recording rights of way in order to put as many as possible on to the definitive map, and then it will finalise the definitive maps at the cut-off date. In addition, it will provide a process through which landowners can apply for rights of way on their land to be diverted or extinguished. As noted by my noble friend Lord Caithness, sometimes this is essential where, for example, walking across a farmyard is dangerous or it could be bad for the livestock. This will be considered on a case-by-case basis and guidance will encourage local authorities to take action where a path crosses a dangerous place, for example.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about bicycles on footpaths. The reforms will not affect the use of registered footpaths where bicycles are not permitted. Bicycles are permitted on bridleways. The reforms will enable existing bridleways to be recorded, so protecting them and providing certainty about where they exist. Access provisions as part of environmental land management will consider all types of users, including cyclists.
As noble Lords will be aware, Defra has been required temporarily to divert resources to planning for our exit from the EU. Rights of way reform has been impacted, and work has been on a temporary hold since October 2018. However, the stakeholder working group is aware of this, believes it is necessary and understands the reason for it. We are not yet in a position to say just how soon work will resume, but I can assure noble Lords that it will be an early priority for the department.
I turn briefly to local authorities, which play an important role in this complex issue. They are responsible for recording rights of way and they do not routinely report to Defra on their progress. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, noted, I understand that many local authorities currently have a backlog of cases. On resumption of the project, officials will work with local authorities to assess the size of the backlog and consider how progress can be made. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that where applications are outstanding, the intention is that the right of way will not be extinguished.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
I did not suggest for a moment that it would be: it is very clear that the backlog is the backlog. The point I was making, which perhaps I did not make sufficiently clear, is just that the backlog will be so big that the legal certainty that landowners want simply will not exist, because it will take local authorities decades to get through the backlog.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I take the comment of the noble Baroness, but I will come on to what will happen to the process when the reforms come through.
The cost and complexity was noted by many noble Lords. We agree that the process is too costly and complex: the rights of way reform project is intended to address these issues and implement a more streamlined process to record rights of way before the cut-off date. The issue at the heart of today’s debate is whether the cut-off date will be delayed—this was mentioned by many noble Lords—and whether the Government will consider delaying the cut-off date from 2026. I appreciate that delaying the cut-off date until 2031 at the latest is a possibility, and some organisations wish to see that. Indeed, we must and we should weigh that against those who are craving certainty, which would be provided by finalising definitive maps. However, on resumption of the project officials will take the issue of the cut-off date forward with the stakeholder working group.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether we will go further than reviewing the cut-off date. I cannot commit to that. Certainly, we will go back and look at the cut-off date with the stakeholder working group, but we will not repeal the relevant sections of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. There are arguments on both sides of this issue and at the moment we feel that there are significant numbers of stakeholders, as well as users, who need certainty as to what they are entitled to do and what they are not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked whether there will be a review of the reforms after implementation. I am pleased to be able to tell her that there will: officials will consider the best way to monitor the impact of the reforms once they have been implemented. Like many noble Lords, I have seen briefings from the Ramblers, the British Horse Society and the Open Spaces Society, and I am grateful for them. They specifically refer to the work done by the voluntary sector to uncover historic rights of way and to a commitment by a previous Government to support this work. We absolutely recognise that the voluntary sector does very valuable work—this is probably citizenship at its best. They research and record rights of way and we believe that, based on the recommendations of the stakeholder working group, the reforms we propose will assist this work by simplifying the process involved.
Some noble Lords noted the availability of local authority resources, but the Government already provide funding for the revenue support grant to LAs, in which is included funding for rights of way improvement plans. At this time there will be no additional funding available; however, it is important to remember that the system must be as streamlined and efficient as possible, and we believe that the rights of way reforms we are proposing, which have been worked up with the stakeholder working group, will go some way to improve and speed up the process of registering rights of way.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, before my noble friend comes to her peroration, the availability of insurance reassures all parties as to their position, particularly landowners. Will she undertake to make sure that the stakeholder group takes that into consideration when it meets again?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I will certainly feed that back in to the stakeholder group, because I do not have any further information for him on that.
Before I reach the final bit, I turn to the Agriculture Bill. It is worth touching on this because the role that some of its provisions could play in the support of access to the countryside is very important. The Bill will make provision for public funding for access as part of the environmental land management schemes. As noble Lords will know, the Bill marks a significant shift in the Government’s support for farmers. It will make sure that they are rewarded properly for the work they do to enhance the environment around us and indeed for people’s access to it. Previously, subsidies have been paid based on the size of an individual’s landholding, not on the contribution that farmers make to society. The scheme will be focused on ensuring that public money is being allocated only where public goods are being delivered. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned bad signage, lack of continuity and no consideration of the future needs of the network. All these issues will be able to be wrapped up in projects that will fall under the ELM schemes when they come into effect, once noble Lords have had the chance to consider the Agriculture Bill.
Our aim is for more people to engage with and spend time in the natural environment, and the Government are absolutely committed to enabling that. I reiterate that rights of way are a valuable part of our heritage and an important part of achieving this aim. Some noble Lords may have raised some issues to which I have not been able to respond. I will certainly write with further information where I can and ensure that all noble Lords are copied in. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for securing this debate today, which has been fascinating, if short. I also thank all noble Lords who took part.
Sexual Violence
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of international mechanisms to hold perpetrators of sexual violence to account; and what steps they are taking to ensure justice for survivors.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have secured this important debate and I thank your Lordships in advance for taking the time to join the discussion on this pressing issue. Before I start I wish to declare my interests. I have been a member of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative from the outset and I served as a member of the Sexual Violence in Conflict Select Committee. I also co-chair the APPG on Women, Peace and Security.
As the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative sets out, sexual violence is frequently used for political ends both as a means of ethnic cleansing and to terrorise local populations. Horrifically, rape and sexual violence have been used throughout history as weapons of war in conflicts across the world. However, this has reached epidemic proportions today, and we hear horrendous stories coming out of Syria, Yemen, Iraq, South Sudan, DRC and among the Rohingya people to name but a few contemporary conflicts. Sexual violence destroys lives, tears families and communities apart, fuels conflict, creates refugees and will haunt those who suffer it for the rest of their days. As Margot Wallström, who was the special representative of the UN Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict, said,
“it is unfortunately a very effective, cheap and silent weapon with a long-lasting effect on every society”.
Sexual violence is indiscriminate, affecting men and boys as well as women and girls, children and babies. Victims may contract HIV, women—although horribly damaged—may have to deliver babies born of rape, and one should never forget that gang rape can kill. All too often the perpetrators go free while the victims face a lifetime of shame and stigma.
The first time I came across this personally was when I visited Rwanda and went to talk to a church full of widows. The young woman who greeted me had lost her husband and one of her three children in the genocide, and she had contracted HIV as a result of being raped. She was gaunt and worried that she would leave her remaining children orphans. On another day in Rwanda I was taken to see a young man. He had been raped and had contracted HIV. He lived on the edge of a village, shunned by everyone because they knew about his condition.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hague, who in 2012 during his time as Foreign Secretary, launched the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, or PSVI, alongside the Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Angelina Jolie. Although Security Council Resolution 1820, which was passed in 2008, recognises sexual violence as a tool of war, this initiative shone a spotlight on the issue, bringing it to global attention. It helped to promote international co-operation and increased the political will and capacity of states to do more. Some 155 countries endorsed the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, launched during the 68th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2013. These countries agreed that no peace agreements should give amnesty to people who have ordered or carried out rape, and an international protocol was established to set standards for the documentation and investigation of sexual violence in conflict.
In addition, the creation of the role of the Prime Minister’s representative for sexual violence in conflict was key, highlighting the importance of this work and driving it forward. I recognise the dedication of those who have held the office: my noble friend Lady Anelay and now my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who will be responding to the debate. It is important that we have both female and male champions because it is not just a woman’s issue and we need male champions to support and help us. I also pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Helic and others at the FCO, DfID and the MoD who have worked so hard on this initiative.
One of the major thrusts of the PSVI is to end the culture of impunity, shifting the shame from the victims to the perpetrators by bringing them to justice. Member states in the UN make increasingly strong statements calling for an end to impunity for conflict-related sexual violence. In April 2018, in the Security Council open debate on conflict-related sexual violence, SRSG Pramilla Patten flagged the impunity of perpetrators as a key issue, yet in spite of all the declarations and good intent, disappointingly few people have so far been brought to trial and prosecuted. The work of the Dr Denis Mukwege Foundation argues that:
“Despite an expanding legal framework against sexual violence in conflict, there have been relatively few cases at the international courts and tribunals”.
For example, the ICC’s first conviction for sexual violence crimes against former Congolese vice-president Jean-Pierre Bemba was made in March 2016, but it was overturned last June, so no reparations were awarded to victims and no justice was done. There are numerous other perpetrators in the DRC, which is often referred to as the rape capital of the world, but have any of them been held to account?
Today were are told that the Caliphate of Daesh in Iraq and Syria has been defeated. We have all heard about the fate of the Yazidis: so many women dragged away, sold to become sex slaves and multiply raped. I ask the Minister how many of these perpetrators have been charged with sexual violence. I understand that many ISIL fighters are being held in Iraqi prisons charged with terrorism but not sexual violence. If this horrendous weapon is not acknowledged in terms of the law, how will that deter others from committing sexual violence in the future and how will Yazidi women ever feel that the terrible crimes against them have been properly recognised and the perpetrators punished?
When Raqqa fell, fighters, many whom had committed war crimes, including sexual violence, were allowed to walk away. Was that agreed by the 79 partners of the global coalition against Daesh? We know that many of the Rohingya women escaping from the northern Rakhine State to Bangladesh have been raped. What is happening to hold people to account there? How can the UN and the UK put pressure on the Governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh to enable justice to prevail?
It is a sad situation that today it still appears that those who order or carry out rape and sexual violence in war can expect to get away with it. It would appear that the current global political and legal climates are not conducive to the goal of ensuring that survivors and the families of victims can seek justice and access to legal systems is shrinking. States in many conflict-affected areas have shown themselves to be either unwilling or unable to receive complaints, investigate or prosecute cases. Too often regional tribunals are slow to respond and few survivors have access to them. There is often little political will to establish international or hybrid courts for a variety of reasons, including cost and the time to deliver judgments. Access to international legal mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court is shrinking as member states do not ratify the ICC treaty—countries including China and the US—justified in a speech by Secretary of State Pompeo last month because he does not want American military or civil personnel to be prosecuted. Many countries affected by conflict, including Somalia, Iraq, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen, have not ratified the treaty. Referrals from the Security Council to the ICC are diminishing due to the veto. Meanwhile, member states are often restricting the national legislation which could allow investigations and prosecutions of grave and serious international crimes outside the jurisdiction in which they occurred.
Sadly, sexual violence is not only committed by non-state actors. During our Select Committee inquiry we received a considerable volume of evidence on the issue of sexual violence perpetrated by peacekeepers. The crimes were often exploitative and transactional in their nature, making them somewhat different from what I have been describing so far, but they are an abuse of trust and position. While I naturally commend the steps the UN have taken to date, the current system for holding peacekeepers accountable is still not working and lacks transparency. Can the Minister update us on what more can be done?
The PSVI initiative was always going to be a marathon rather than a sprint and it needs sustained effort. Will the Minister update us on the decisions and outcomes of the Wilton Park conference at the end of February on PSVI? Last year’s PSVI film festival was uplifting, poignant and challenging. I look forward to the PSVI international conference which the UK will host later this year, five years on from the 2014 global summit. This will be an opportunity to bring global attention to this important issue again.
I am grateful for being able to raise this issue today and to other noble Lords who will speak. With all the progress being made and attention on this issue, will the Minister say why justice for survivors of sexual violence in conflict-affected areas is so elusive? How can we best use the UK’s soft power and influence to ensure that adequate national and international mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the perpetrators of sexual violence are brought to justice and that the shame and stigma is shifted once and for all from the victims to the perpetrators? I end with the words of Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi:
“We have to be a loud and clear voice for those whose voices cannot be heard. Under international law, rape is a crime against humanity—and it is our duty to work to bring impunity for such crimes to an end”.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, on bringing this important debate to the Committee. As she will know, I was the Government’s ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas for all five years of the coalition Government, and violence against women was also in my portfolio for the two years I was a DfID Minister, as was responsibility for Africa, a continent riven by sexual violence against women and girls in war—and out of war, frankly. This was an era of real progress, of moving forward on this agenda, particularly the PSVI. The then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, did a massive amount of amazing work on sexual violence in conflict, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. It was as if the world’s attention was on us, and the global summit to which the noble Baroness referred was a turning point. The world was looking at us. That was obviously helped by Angelina Jolie and various rumours that were circulating at the time.
DfID was focused on women’s lives. The experiences I had and the lives I witnessed taught me that right across the world women are oppressed and suppressed and are the victims of sexual violence regardless. Justine Greening, then my Secretary of State, together with Nike, coined the expression, vis-à-vis DfID’s work with women, “Giving women choice, voice and control” because across the world we have virtually none, and I include this country in that to a degree, but not to the degree that I saw in Africa or Asia.
I remember the desperation of girl students at a university in Ethiopia who were often the victims of sexual violence on campus, but if they reported it to the police they were as likely to be raped by the police as they were to be listened to. I remember visiting a Marie Stopes outreach clinic for victims of sexual and domestic violence in Uganda and sitting in a circle with women who had all escaped from sexual violence to the refuge and hearing their tales. A woman holding a baby had only stumps for arms. One arm ended above the elbow and the other ended below it. Her husband had cut her arms off because she was not available when he needed her. That was literally no voice, no choice and no control, and she had no one to go to. There was no justice, no one to run to and no one to help. I met girls—children, really—who had been raped, often by family members. In a refuge in DRC, I met girls who had been thrown out of their homes and villages as witches and who were living on the streets, being raped nightly until they finally got to the refuge, which I think was run by War Child. Most of them were pregnant.
The main subject of this debate is rape as a weapon of war. Despite all the fantastic work that charities do, the money and the effort that donor countries have put in, and the bravery of the fighters for human rights, equality, justice and change, it is a long, challenging and seemingly impossible task, but we must make it possible. How we bring perpetrators to justice is key, for, without consequences—and, sadly, with the complicity of authorities, organisations, communities and Governments —change will not come.
It is hard enough in this country to get convictions and justice for the two women per week who are killed by their partners or ex-partners. In countries where rule of law is at best tentative, in war, it is virtually impossible. But progress has been made. The first challenge is always persuading countries and the international community to have laws. The bigger challenge is getting them to enforce them, to ensure that international law is instituted and is working.
As has been said, in South Sudan, DRC, Myanmar, CAR, Northern Rakhine, Yemen and the list goes on and on, violation of human rights is common and its defence ever more dangerous for those activists who try to bring perpetrators to justice. Women get raped if they report violations; witnesses are intimidated if they testify. We are dealing with so many reasons for this: clans, religion, politics, poverty, ethnicity. Sometimes, as was said, it is an expression of ethnic cleansing, as in cases of the Rohingya and the Yazidis. Sometimes it is a weapon of war employed by the armed forces themselves. The consequent displacement and dispossession of land exacerbates the danger, leaving women even more exposed to sexual violence than before.
During my time at DfID, I tried to get the big charities—Oxfam, Save the Children and others—to take positive action in refugee camps, which are dangerous places for women and girls. Of course, the first order is shelter, water, food and sanitation, but we have a duty of care for those raped in refugee camps—something that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Women and girls fleeing violence and conflict are so vulnerable to traffickers and border forces and, once in camps, to other refugees or, indeed—sadly—occasionally to humanitarian workers. In wretched circumstances, rape and sexual violence are commonplace.
We need to ensure that the resolutions, promises and declarations about tackling these issues are acted upon and perpetrators brought to justice. Since the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, there have been a great many more initiatives, committees, papers, resolutions and actions, including the setting up in 2015 of the House of Lords Sexual Violence in Conflict Committee. It is timely that this debate should look at the international mechanisms to hold perpetrators of sexual violence to account and see whether all these summits and good intentions have led to anything that actually works. I was not completely up to speed on that but, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, it is clear that they have not worked, or are not working to anything like the degree needed to change the future.
I will be very interested to hear an up-to-date response from the Minister on the efficacy of the measures in place. Is the information that has been documented adequate, usable and being used successfully? If not, what change is needed? Are those receiving the information acting on it? If not, what are the deficiencies and excuses—the “why”s? What is the record of cases brought? What is the level of success or failure? Why are more cases not brought? What is the political, legal and security context in which the documentation is taking place? What restrictions does context put on the mechanism? Is the information gathered for litigating individual cases for individual redress, or is it being used to advocate for and illustrate the volume and type of sexual violence being perpetrated in specific areas or countries? What support is there for victims or witnesses during or after a legal process? Are measures to protect victim identity, confidentiality and anonymity in place and working? I fear not.
How is the international protocol functioning? Is it overcoming the challenges faced by those trying to document sexual violence as a violation under international law? Are countries supporting the documentation of sexual violence crimes? Are conflict-affected states developing national action plans using that protocol? If so, are they working? Have the recommendations from the Lords committee been implemented? On this debate, importantly, what are the British Government doing to monitor effectiveness on a regular basis? Are the Government asking the questions?
This is a massive challenge, and we must be constantly alert as to whether the mechanisms resulting from all the focus, and all the organisations, are actually delivering. Lastly, what priority do the Minister, the Government and the current Foreign Secretary give to sexual violence in conflict? It was undoubtedly the importance and effort invested by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, in this issue—and Angelina Jolie—that catapulted it into the spotlight. Despite much good work, not least by the noble Baroness, that spotlight appears to be fading—is it delivering?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lady, Baroness Hodgson, has consistently and tenaciously championed the cause of those who have been subjected to unspeakable violence. In her moving and powerful speech this evening, she rightly demanded more effective ways of holding perpetrators to account and ensuring justice. I think we should all express our gratitude to her for that.
I should declare that I am joint chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on North Korea and Pakistani Minorities, vice-chair of the APPGs on Burma and the DRC and an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Sudan and South Sudan. All of these are countries I have visited and all are disfigured by the use of rape as a weapon of war. I am also a trustee of Arise, a charity that works with women who have been trafficked or enslaved.
Last year, Denis Mukwege—who was referred to by the noble Baroness—with Nadia Murad, a Yazidi woman I have had the privilege to meet, jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize, given,
“for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict”,
as it says in the citation. In the DRC, where more than 5 million people are estimated to have died in the long-running conflicts—a greater number than in any other conflict since World War II—Dr Mukwere has treated thousands of women who were raped, performing up to 10 operations every day. Since Panzi Hospital, in Bukavu, was founded by Dr Mukwege in 1999, it has treated more than 82,000 patients with complex gynaecological damage and trauma. An estimated 60% of these injuries were caused by sexual violence. Dr Mukwege describes how his patients arrive at the hospital sometimes naked, usually in horrific conditions, victims of different armed groups.
Throughout this discussion of international mechanisms to hold perpetrators of sexual violence to account, we should keep Dr Mukwege and Nadia Murad—tortured and raped by Islamic State militants during their genocide—at the heart of our deliberations. It is crucial to begin with one important fact: that there are not many adequate mechanisms in place to end the current culture of impunity. Indeed, the only permanent international criminal tribunal, the International Criminal Court, despite being able to deal with cases of sexual violence, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes of aggression, often lacks the jurisdiction to be able to investigate the crimes and to prosecute the perpetrators. The ICC is a treaty-bound court and its competence is limited by that fact alone. This is graphically illustrated by the genocidal campaign unleashed by ISIS against religious and other minorities in Syria and Iraq—people like Nadia Murad.
As the House knows, in 2014, ISIS, driven by its hatred of difference, instigated mass murder, torture, abuse, rape, sexual violence, and forced displacement. To this day, more than 3,000 Yazidi women and girls are still missing after they were abducted from Sinjar in September 2014 and are suspected to be in Syria. For more than four years, these women and girls have been subjected to most atrocious abuse imaginable. In her testimony, Nadia says:
“One moment I was a farm girl, going to school in my village in northern Iraq and the next I was an ISIS sex slave, ‘owned’ by militants. My peaceful existence was shattered simply because my religious beliefs were deemed sub-human by a group of men who believed they were superior. ISIS murdered my family and took me captive, exposing me to horrors which would be impossible to imagine had I not endured every moment and felt each brutal blow”.
She says she chose to speak because:
“I believed the world needed to know the truth and I wanted justice. I wanted ISIS held accountable. If we cannot achieve this, with all the evidence and our justice systems, then we are giving a green light to these groups”.
Yet, despite the level and nature of these atrocities, the ICC cannot get involved. The ICC does not have territorial jurisdiction in Syria or Iraq, and, currently, there is no other international or regional criminal court that could deal with prosecutions. Another option would be for the Security Council to establish an ad hoc tribunal to prosecute the ISIS fighters, modelled on the precedent set by the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia or the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. The Minister knows that I have been in touch with him and the Foreign Office on a number of occasions to put forward that proposal.
Under Security Council Resolution 2379, an investigative team is already mandated to collect, preserve and prepare for future prosecutions the evidence of the crimes perpetrated by ISIS in Iraq. As the next step, the Security Council could establish the international criminal tribunal for ISIS, modelled on the ICTY or the ICTR, with a tailored mandate.
In June 2018, work in this direction was initiated by Pieter Omtzigt, a Dutch MP, who convened a meeting between the Iraqi Government’s representatives and experts to explore the need to assist Iraq in prosecuting ISIS fighters and looking into the available options. The Iraqi representatives agreed that as the issue of ISIS is not only a problem of Iraq but of international concern and an international responsibility, Iraq would need assistance with the prosecutions. More than 850 people from the UK travelled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS and were directly involved there in every aspect of the genocide, including systematic rape and enslavement. The UK clearly needs to be involved in prosecuting the fighters. Stripping them of citizenship is not the way to bring about justice, a point I raised during Question Time recently. It merely makes it harder.
For months, I have I have been urging the Government to explore the initiation of international or regional prosecutions, especially as the investigative team has just begun the excavations of the first mass grave in Sinjar. The international option is crucial if there is to be justice. Survivors of rape and sexual violence are not involved in the proceedings of Iraqi domestic courts, giving little hope that justice will be served. How can we ensure justice if the very people affected by the atrocities are not even asked to testify, to tell the stories of what happened to them, and do not have the opportunity to see justice being done or to hear an apology?
Considering the territorial limitations of the ICC, it may be crucial to reconsider whether we need a new mechanism that would be better suited to address the growing impunity. If the Minister would be willing, I would be most grateful for a meeting to discuss this troubling situation and possible ways forward.
Let me also briefly mention Pakistan, which I visited in November, and where the Minister also was recently. At least 1,000 women belonging to religious minorities, some of them minors, have been abducted, forcibly converted and often married to those very abductors. They come from the very poorest sectors of society and are easy targets for the perpetrators of sexual violence. The law-enforcement agencies often show little or no interest in helping aggrieved parents to register a police case against the kidnappers. Even if the parents persist and somehow reach the courts and the abductors are forced to bring victims to the court, the abducted are threatened and told that if they tell the court about their kidnappings, their parents and siblings will be killed. Thus they have no option but to admit in the court that their conversion was voluntary.
In the past few weeks, there have been at least six such cases, which I have drawn to the Minister’s attention. These include a 13 year-old Christian girl, Sadaf Masih, who was kidnapped, forcibly converted and married on 6 February, in Punjab. On 20 March, two teenaged Hindu girls, Reena, aged 15, and Raveena, aged 13, were similarly kidnapped, forcibly converted and married within a matter of hours, in Sindh. The kidnappers were married already, with children, but that that did not prevent them from forcibly marrying those girls. In the worst-case scenarios, the kidnappers after sexual and physical abuse, sell them into slavery and they are sent to brothels.
We give Pakistan £383,000 in aid each and every day—£2.8 billion over 20 years. Surely we can use our aid programmes with leverage to ensure justice for the victims and to save many broken lives and families. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, is to be thanked for encouraging us to address this important issue this evening, and I reiterate my gratitude to her.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for securing this debate on a very difficult area. I must say that I put my name down hoping that I would learn an awful lot more than I would contribute to the debate. From the speeches so far I have done so, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, which was excellent and instructive, and for which I thank her.
Rape in conflict, of women and men, is one of the most sickening crimes human beings can commit. I think we all agree with that. It is not just an act of sexual intercourse, as I have said many times. It is a series of disgusting, painful, humiliating, life-threatening actions, perpetrated on helpless victims by triumphant soldiers. It is a weapon of war and, in some cases, a weapon of genocide.
I know, however, that there is huge disagreement internationally and nationally on what to do about this. My first researcher, when I entered the House of Commons in 1997, had also acted as my organiser during the general election. She won the seat of Richmond Park for me. She is Dr Louise Arimatsu, now a distinguished policy fellow at the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics. I must confess that she has tried to explain to me the complicated international law around this subject. Law is never simple, and I always say to her that I am very glad I did medicine, and not law.
As a doctor, however, I know how difficult it is to get women and men to testify on oath about what happened to them for fear of being disgraced in their communities. It is a terrible, terrible disgrace for them. Therefore, in these cases we need to completely change the accent on how these cases are dealt with. It is the commanding officers of the soldiers who perpetrate these crimes who should be held responsible for those crimes. It must be very difficult, I know, to control men fired up to kill or be killed—I have never had to do it—but a few more prosecutions of commanding officers, holding them responsible for the actions of their soldiers, might just concentrate minds. No ifs, no buts, no excuses—they are responsible.
We are trying to adopt a similar philosophy in cases of FGM, in which it is often impossible to get a child to give evidence against a parent or anyone who has done this terrible thing to them, so parents are held entirely responsible for the safety of that child. It is they who should be prosecuted. Dr Arimatsu, interestingly, mentioned the military trial 70 years ago of General Yamashita, who was responsible for tens of thousands of people being tortured and killed in the Second World War. In the Yamashita case, it was stated—and this is very good to listen to:
“Where murder and rape and vicious revengeful actions are widespread offences, and there is no effective attempt by a commander to discover and control the criminal acts, such a commander may be held responsible, even criminally liable, for the lawless acts of his troops”.
That was said in court 70 years ago. We have not come very far since then.
As already mentioned, it was encouraging when, in 2016, Jean-Pierre Bemba was convicted at the ICC of being responsible for the acts of sexual violence committed by his soldiers in the Central African Republic in 2003-04. This has, however, as has been mentioned, been overturned by a majority in the ICC Appeals Chamber. The judges there disputed whether Bemba had taken sufficient measures to prevent these actions taking place. This judgment and the appeal are causing great concern amongst international lawyers. I wonder if the Minister can shed some light on what our Government are thinking.
Perhaps he could also comment on recent suggestions by a prosecutor that the victim may have consented to being raped. This must be clarified before a conviction can take place. “Consented”—I ask you. I ask, in all honesty, whether a woman—or a man, for that matter—would give consent for rape by a soldier at gunpoint, perhaps with a rifle butt or a broken bottle, both examples I heard about from victims in a hospital in Tirana, Albania, who had escaped from Kosovo during the Balkan wars. Consent? Where are these people coming from? Access to justice is a human right and an obligation for us under CEDAW. It is not just about prosecutions and the ICC. Individual states, not just the International Criminal Court, should be prosecuting violations, and we should be assisting those states to do this, perhaps through our DfID budget or one of those ghostly, curious, cross-departmental, peace-promoting budgets that we have heard about. Perhaps one could be used for the purpose of helping those Governments to prosecute soldiers.
Noble Lords would not expect me, as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, to finish without dealing with medical justice for the victims—women victims in particular—of rape. Our Government have taken a lead and implemented the delivery of sexual and reproductive health services to women who have been raped so that, above all, they can have an abortion if they become pregnant as a result of their ordeal. That is of course subject to the laws of the country, but it is their entitlement under international law. I honestly cannot think of a worse fate for a woman than to be badly injured and raped, recover a bit and then discover that she is pregnant as a consequence of that rape, but not have any access to abortion to deal with that. If we put ourselves in that position—I know the men cannot but the women certainly can—we know that it is just unthinkable. Our Government have been very strong on this issue and I congratulate them. As they know, I am not a great supporter of the Conservative Government, but they are very good on this issue.
At this point, I must refer to President Trump’s latest personal assault on women by expanding the global gag rule—the Mexico City policy—which will further jeopardise women’s and girls’ chances of dignified recovery and survival as sexual and reproductive health services are reduced all over the world as a result of the ramifications of the gag rule. I am having a lot of trouble getting the absolute detail from the NGOs about how the gag rule will affect them, because it has been expanded and extended, but I believe that there is some sort of exception for abortion after rape in conflict. I would be very pleased if the Minister could enlighten me today or perhaps write after the debate.
Once again I applaud the UK Government for their continuing support for sexual and reproductive health and abortion services globally; for defending the rights of women who have suffered violence in conflict; and, as we have heard, for the great conference that was held at the ExCel Centre—I never know what that place is called—with William Hague and Angelina Jolie. The conference was an inspiration to a lot of people, and we should carry on its impetus.
Our Government may not be doing too well on our relationship with Europe, but there are women all over the developing world who are grateful for this country’s advocacy of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, in particular the NGOs—the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International—that stand firm against President Trump’s attack on women’s reproductive rights.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for initiating this debate and for being very consistent on this issue; we had a debate in January on this subject as well. I am extremely grateful to her for continuing the battle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, mentioned Angelina Jolie, the UNHCR special envoy, who, in searching for solutions to violence against women, has focused her work on three clear themes that I think have come out in this debate: justice, accountability and international leadership. We need to ensure that we have the tools, sufficient resources and political will. There is no doubt that since the PSVI launch in 2012, the UK has led the world in efforts to end the horror of sexual violence in conflict.
It is a long-haul campaign, and the further international conference to be hosted by the UK in November can be a catalyst for change and further progress. That is what we need to ensure in building up to the November conference. The noble Baroness referred to the Wilton Park event, which was hosted by the Minister—noble Lords have referred to the fact that he is the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. I hope what comes out of Wilton—I am sure the noble Lord will tell us—will be some concrete recommendations for Governments, international agencies and NGOs on how to strengthen justice at the national and international levels for survivors of conflict. How we build up ongoing support for that November event is the key to this debate, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us what other events are being planned before November to ensure that we have full engagement, not just with NGOs. I would like to see events that broaden this out, so that we get other civil society groups, particularly—I do bang on about this—trade unions and international organisations that can ensure sustainability for the changes we want to see.
What are the remaining challenges we face? The Minister has done excellent work on this, and we heard about the film festival. We have to strongly address action on tackling survivor stigma, when the victims feel they are to blame, and children born of sexual violence. We must also ensure the provision of services for male victims, including LGBT and disabled survivors, and work with military and faith groups—they are the other voices we need to hear strongly at the November conference.
As we have heard in this debate, justice and accountability are vital parts of the strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, has said today and on previous occasions, an important element of fighting sexual violence is holding people to account so that they cannot act with impunity. In the January debate, the Minister, whom I congratulate on his ongoing work, called on countries to sign up to the new Murad code on sexual violence, which sets out the expected standards of behaviour. What progress has been made to ensure an international consensus on implementation of that code? How many countries are involved, and what more can we do to ensure that we end up with a strong consensus in November?
Women endure discrimination, violence and the denial of their rights simply because they are women. We must tackle the underlying problem of a lack of empowerment, education and inclusion. We need explicitly feminist foreign and development policies, based on the principles of gender justice, rights, intersectionality and solidarity, so that we tackle the structural causes of gender inequality, transform gender norms and challenge patriarchy in everything that the FCO and DfID do. The way to do that is to expand the support which I know is being given to grass-roots women’s organisations, stepping up assistance to support partner Governments committed to reducing gender inequality: for example, through gender audits, gender impact assessments and gender budgeting. We can lead the way and support other Governments.
We need stronger political leadership globally, where women’s rights are under attack. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on the attack launched by President Trump. We need to champion women’s sexual and reproductive health rights and certainly mitigate the impact of those US-led funding cuts. We also need to more to protect women human rights defenders by promoting the right to freedom of association, assembly and expression.
I have another point on which I would like to hear more from the Minister. Exactly how are the strategies we have been adopting in the FCO being dealt with on a cross-departmental basis? How do we build capacity to respond rapidly to sexual and gender-based violence in emergencies? Obviously the MoD, the FCO and DfID all have an important role to play in this and I would certainly like to hear how those cross-departmental strategies are working.
I apologise for not writing down the name of the noble Lord who spoke of this, but the plight of the Rohingya people must be in all our minds. Horrendous sexual crimes have been committed. It is apparent that thousands of women refugees in Bangladesh have still not received support or counselling following their experiences of sexual violence, and they have not been able to make witness statements. Can the Minister tell us how many of the UK’s 70 sexual violence experts have been deployed to those camps? Are we making progress?
This is one of those areas for which I think there is complete cross-party support and I hope that the noble Baroness will continue with her hard work to ensure that we build up to a successful conference in November. In that way we will ensure that there is a proper catalyst for change.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Hodgson for securing this debate and I acknowledge her long-standing commitment to and unrelenting passion for ensuring that the victims and survivors of sexual violence in conflict are at the heart of our policy-making. I applaud her work in this respect, in particular as part of the PSVI external steering board on which she sits. She advises me directly as the Prime Minister’s special representative. I also thank her for her work on the APPG. Perhaps I may start with a personal reflection. My noble friend Lady Hodgson and I have worked together on this issue. Indeed, one of our first visits from this House was to Bosnia helping to build support mechanisms and a shelter for the victims and survivors of that conflict.
Let me assure all noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend, that the commitment of the UK Government to this issue is unrelenting. We continue to commit resources, time, effort and leadership to prioritising PSVI across the piece internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about cross-government working. Our focus on PSVI reflects the agenda we have set out in our national action plan on women, peace and security, and I am pleased to report that its fourth iteration brings together the expertise of the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The international progress which has been made under our leadership over the past seven years has been sustained.
Given that, perhaps I should start by expressing a certain disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone—I greatly respect her and I acknowledge her contribution. I do not believe that the spotlight has diminished. On the contrary, not through our efforts alone but in recognising the work of Nadia Murad and Dr Mukwege, we can reflect the priority that the international community continues to give. I can assure the noble Baroness that we are working hand in glove with both those individuals and their organisations not just in the delivery of our event later this year but by directly supporting their initiatives as well. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to these Nobel prize winners—and rightly so—and we all acknowledge their work and put that formally on record.
Intensive work and sustained effort are required in ensuring that this agenda remains at the top of international priorities, not only in the UK but in other countries as well. Work began in November last year when, as several noble Lords have noted, we hosted the world’s first film festival focused on eliminating the stigma of sexual violence in conflict and, yes, we involved directly Angelina Jolie. We brought film-makers from those conflict regions to depict through film their experiences and to ensure that priority is given in their countries. We used the BFI as the backdrop for that event, which brought together increased focus and attention.
I am extremely grateful to Her Royal Highness the Countess of Wessex, who we have briefed over the past few months. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hodgson was with me at our first meeting at Buckingham Palace. She recently declared at a reception specifically for women peacekeepers at Buckingham Palace her commitment to the agenda for women, peace and security and, importantly, her engagement directly with the PSVI agenda.
The UK has also participated directly in survivor-focused events in other countries. Recently, Luxembourg hosted a successful Stand Speak Rise Up! event; the UK brought together international legal experts at Wilton Park; and other events will take place during the course of this year, primarily through institutions of the UN. Germany will be focused on this agenda during its presidency of the Security Council. We will again work hand in glove with like-minded partners to ensure that the focus and international attention are not diverted but sustained and strengthened during 2019.
I said last year that 2019 should be the year of PSVI. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, or anyone who has worked in any form within government, will recognise that sometimes it is slightly easier to start an initiative—no doubt, getting it off the ground is difficult—but my experience over the past 12 months has been that to sustain and strengthen an initiative needs equal commitment.
I am therefore grateful to noble Lords who are here today and others who have worked together. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly pointed out, I have welcomed the direct input and will continue to do so. I invite all noble Lords here today to help us to plan effectively so that we put victims and survivors at the heart of our conference in November.
In line with the rest of our PSVI work, the outcomes of the international conference will be built on the three essential foundations to which the noble Lord alluded: addressing the root causes of conflict-related violence; tackling the stigma associated with it; and, most relevant for today’s debate, achieving justice and accountability for survivors.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned situations elsewhere in the world—in Pakistan and so on—and I am cognisant of the role of faith leaders, a voice which, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, needs to be heard more clearly and loudly. As part of tackling the issue of stigma against the victims, survivors and children born of rape, we are working closely with international faith leaders from all communities and leaders of belief organisations to ensure that there is a declaration of humanity tackling these specific issues at the November conference. Much work is being done directly with faith leaders in this respect.
A key element of our work is focused on enhancing international standards for the collection of evidence in support of prosecution and accountability. My noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, touched on these important issues among others. One of the specific outcomes of the PSVI conference will be the strengthening of the Murad code, which is named after Nadia Murad, who I have had the great honour to work with directly. She won a Nobel prize—and rightly so—but dedicated her prize money to a hospital and support for victims and survivors in the country where she suffered.
I have been to Iraq and I have met with the victims of sexual violence from the Yazidi communities. When you look into their eyes, there is a poignancy and a reflection of the experience they have been through. There are no words but their bravery and courage inspires me. I am humbled by the fact that I am leading the Government’s charge on this issue and honoured that I carry the Prime Minister’s title in this respect. This shows that this is not only a commitment for me, the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary but one to which the Head of Government, the Prime Minister, is also committed. Alongside that work, as noble Lords have said, there are recommendations from Wilton Park. Together with our international partners, we are examining how to strengthen accountability through the criminal justice mechanism and other methods such as restorative justice to ensure a survivor-centred approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, talked about her experiences, as did my noble friend. I know that we have been looking at how we can impact some of those survivors in places such as the DRC. I confirm that we are supporting a pilot project with the Mukwege Foundation to assess the feasibility of a national assistance fund for the survivors of sexual violence.
Many noble Lords talked about international mechanisms. It was rightly acknowledged in the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Tonge, that first and foremost the primary responsibility for investigating crimes rests with states. We are building capacity in places such as Iraq in that respect. Tragically, though, in certain circumstances there are states that are genuinely unable or, unfortunately, unwilling to act. International mechanisms therefore have to be strengthened and we are working on that priority.
Jurisprudence on the issue has been advanced through the ad hoc international tribunals and hybrid courts of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, some of which were acknowledged and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I would be pleased to meet him as we build up towards the conference in November to see what more can be done in that respect. Several noble Lords talked about the International Criminal Court. Regrettably, as has been acknowledged, we have seen that decisions do not always go in favour of the survivors. We need not to abandon the ICC but to strengthen the institution, and I assure noble Lords of the UK’s commitment in that regard. That is why we are supporting reform.
I join in the tributes to my noble friend Lord Hague and UN special envoy Angelina Jolie for their continuing commitment, and indeed to my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Anelay. We have worked together on this issue over a period of years along with others in this Room and beyond—my noble friend Lady Helic is another notable contributor—on how to take the issue forward and strengthen accountability in that regard.
I am cognisant of the time. There may be specific questions on which I will need to write to noble Lords but I shall address some of the issues that have been raised. We have so far given £1 million to the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria, and we are collecting evidence for possible future prosecutions in that regard.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of Burma, including my noble friend Lady Hodgson. We are working directly on the appalling human rights violations and abuses, including sexual violence, perpetrated against the Rohingya community in Rakhine State. We also hope that the new investigative mechanism in Myanmar will ensure that justice is done.
We are at the forefront of ensuring accountability for the well-documented crimes by Daesh. Many noble Lords will know that it was the UK that championed the resolution at the UN Security Council, and I am pleased that a UK QC, Karim Khan, is leading the investigative team in Iraq. We are working with the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government on this issue to develop accountability and justice mechanisms that can be applied locally through strengthening justice mechanisms within Iraq. The team will support efforts by the Government of Iraq to hold Daesh accountable, and I think we need to learn from those experiences to see how the mechanisms can be strengthened elsewhere.
I am conscious of the great expertise that has been shown during the course of this debate, but I should stress that the UK approach to PSVI goes much further than just supporting justice mechanisms. We will work to foster inclusive and equal societies and help all survivors of sexual violence, girls and women but also the young men who are often affected, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
My noble friend asked about sexual exploitation and abuse carried out by UN peacekeepers. The Government agree, which is why we fully support the UN Secretary-General’s zero tolerance approach to this issue and have given a further $3 million directly to the UN over the past three years towards tackling this crime. As I have said, the UK took the lead on UN Security Council Resolution 2272 which mandates the full and transparent reporting of incidents and demands the repatriation of entire contingents guilty of persistent crimes in this respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, asked about the US gag rule. If I may, I will write specifically in response.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Hodgson. She and I have worked on this issue over a number of years now. I say to all noble Lords that we will continue to work directly with them on this important issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, people might get a bit concerned because so often we use the phrase that we are “together on this and aligned in our commitment”, but irrespective of which party you represent or what perspective you may hold, I am confident that across this House, the other place and beyond, the United Kingdom is wholly committed. Yes, we will include civil society in our international conference later this year. Crucially, we are working with civil society in other states but, most importantly, with the survivors of sexual violence to put them at the heart of the conference and of our work.
I started with a personal reflection and now end with one. As I said earlier, I have been to Iraq, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Kosovo. I have had the honour of meeting survivors of sexual violence such as Nadia Murad but, more importantly, of listening to and working with them. Their fight for justice is our fight. I can assure noble Lords that the UK, and I as the PM’s special representative, will be relentless in our pursuit of justice to ensure that we end impunity and bring justice to the victims and courageous survivors.
House of Lords
Tobacco Harm Reduction
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the levels of smoking and incidence of lung cancer in Sweden as a result of steps taken by that government; and what plans Ministers have to visit that country as part of their forthcoming review of tobacco harm reduction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the current smoking rate in Sweden is 13%, compared to England where the rate is 14.9% and, across the UK, 15.1%. There are no current plans to visit Sweden. Smoking is at the lowest level recorded in England but we are not complacent and remain committed to reducing the rate to 12% or less by 2022, as outlined in the tobacco control plan for England.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. She will be aware that the policy of harm reduction, whereby a less harmful new technology is used to displace a more harmful technology, was pioneered in this country by the noble Lord the Lord Speaker when he was Health Secretary in the 1980s with respect to needle exchanges and HIV. Such a policy has since proved effective in the introduction of e-cigarettes. However, in Sweden, the adult smoking rate is now down to 5% because of another harm-reduction technology, snus—the little teabag of snuff tobacco that one presses against one’s gum and is widely used in Sweden. As a result, there are low lung cancer rates in that country but, because snus is banned in the EU, we are currently unable to follow. Could we not save tens of thousands of lives if we were to legalise this technology when we left the EU at the end of next week?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for his question and join him in paying tribute to the noble Lord the Lord Speaker’s role in harm reduction. No tobacco product is safe to consume, due to its links to cancers. As my noble friend says, snus is banned under the EU tobacco products directive as an oral product, except in Sweden. We have made a commitment under the tobacco control plan that, following EU exit, the Government will consider reviewing the position on snus and whether the introduction of the product to the UK market would promote the kind of proportionate harm-reduction approach that he proposes. However, there is no evidence that snus in Sweden has reduced smoking rates, so the matter is very much under review.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is important to say that snus is snuff—let us be quite clear that we are talking about a tobacco product. It seems slightly odd that the noble Viscount should suggest that we swap one very carcinogenic product for one that might be slightly less carcinogenic and will give you only mouth and throat cancer. Will the Minister commit that the review of tobacco regulation will include an assessment of the continuing attempts by major tobacco companies to market their brand identities through advertising campaigns and sponsorship—for example, through Formula 1? Indeed, one of her colleagues recently had to write to Philip Morris, which makes Marlboro cigarettes, telling it to remove poster adverts for “healthier” tobacco products from shops around the UK.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
Smoking remains the biggest cause of death in this country. Strict rules are in place to prevent tobacco companies promoting their products, including through sponsorship. We take the unlawful promotion of tobacco products extremely seriously and expect any organisation found to be flouting the rules to be investigated.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, although snus contains both nicotine and tobacco—that is why the Swedes use it—the lung cancer rate in Sweden has reduced, whether that is to do with the use of snus or other reasons. That is the main thing that we should be talking about. What strategies do we have to reduce our lung cancer deaths, which run at about 35,000 a year? Tobacco is a key cause—80% of them are related to tobacco. Does the Minister agree that we should think about a strategy for harm reduction, whether it is snus, e-cigarettes or any other product?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Lord, who has expertise in this area, for his intervention. He is absolutely right that we need to target a reduction in lung cancer rates. Cancer Research UK states that smoking tobacco is the biggest cause of lung cancer in the UK, with seven out of 10 lung cancers caused by smoking. The NHS Long Term Plan has a very heavy emphasis on prevention, including smoking cessation services. One of the first interventions from that plan to be rolled out is the innovative targeted lung health check, which will provide an easy-access gateway to lung health and smoking cessation services. I hope that he is reassured by that answer.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, Sweden has banned the advertising of tobacco products, introduced clean indoor air laws and increased the price of cigarettes. Together with the properly regulated promotion of e-cigarettes, have not these measures been shown across the world to be the best methods of tobacco control? Is there not a real danger with products such as snus that tobacco companies want to promote their dual use, pushing potentially dangerous tobacco products in clean air environments and continuing to push traditional tobacco smoking products elsewhere?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
The noble Lord is right. E-cigarettes have proved to be a beneficial aid in quitting smoking, but the best thing that a smoker can do for their health is to quit smoking entirely. That is the priority of the tobacco control plan and the measures that are pushed through the NHS and by other means. In the UK, about 5.5% of adults—about 2.2 million—currently use e-cigarettes. It has proved to be an effective means of quitting smoking, which is why we encouraged this route through the tobacco control plan and will continue to do so.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, five years ago I smoked 50 cigarettes a day. Then I took up vaping and have not had a puff of tobacco since. Should the Government not do more to encourage smokers to switch to vaping?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I emphasise that smoking is now at the lowest levels recorded, and we should be proud of the fact that the UK is seen as a world leader in tobacco control. However, we are by no measure complacent, because there are variations between different groups and across the country. That is why the NHS Long Term Plan contains a commitment to do more to target smokers in NHS care, why NHS health checks offer an opportunity to smokers to quit, why PHE backs the very successful Stoptober campaign, why we are introducing smoke-free prisons, why we are introducing interventions for those within the mental healthcare system, and why we are introducing a new smoke-free pregnancy pathway. All those things will ensure that we continue to reduce the incidence of smoking in the UK.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister look at the experience of Scotland 20 years ago? A factory was opened that produced these small tobacco pouches, but it was closed down within a year—I was one of the people responsible—because of the incidence of mouth cancer. We saw that, in the United States and elsewhere, mouth cancer was caused by sucking those pouches. It really is a crazy suggestion from the noble Viscount.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Lord for his point. I shall certainly look at the experience of Scotland. There will be an evidence-based review, which will look at the risks as well as at the proposals.
Agriculture: Carbon Emissions
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Redfern
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage the use of precision agriculture techniques in order to reduce carbon emissions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interest as set out in the register. The advantages of precision farming and technological innovation go beyond reducing carbon emissions. They also provide a range of improvements to the environment and farm productivity. The Government committed £160 million to the five-year agritech strategy in 2013. We continue to support British food and agricultural innovation through the £90 million “Transforming food production” initiative to make food production more efficient while lightening our environmental footprint.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. With agricultural management using those technologies in practice while increasing agricultural productivity and income, can the Minister confirm that, with the five-year agritech strategy in its final year, the data and results will feed into the 25-year environmental plan?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I should say that precision farming is widely used and has been very successful in raising productivity and reducing the amount of input, but certainly on the results of the five-year plan there are some very interesting schemes that are clearly going to take some time to move from laboratory to farm. As far as I can see, all of them confirm that precision farming is going to be of enormous benefit, and those results will come out into the farmland situation as soon as possible.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, is it not clear on the evidence available that Britain has a relatively poor record on the introduction of precision farming? I say that as a former Agriculture Minister, so I am not blameless myself in that regard. But has the Minister considered not only the benefits of precision farming—which are well understood to be increased crop yields and the reduction of weeds—but also its impact on wildlife in agriculture? Precision farming has very serious implications for flowers, insects and birds.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is precisely why I think that precision farming—which, as I have said, is being used much more widely in both the arable and livestock sectors because it directs the product on to what is required—is going to be of enormous environmental benefit in terms of the fine tuning of the use of those products. It also enhances productivity, and both enhancing the environment and increasing food production is a good thing.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is estimated by Natural England that some 600 million tonnes of carbon are sunk in English peatlands, yet they are degrading. Will the Minister tell us what urgent action the Government are taking to restore our peatlands? Should not the commercial exploitation and sale of peat stop now?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Peatland offers the best carbon storage—double that of woodland. It is immensely important, and that is why we are implementing four projects to restore more than 148,000 acres of peatland over the next three years. Clearly, as we have seen in horticulture, the important thing is that—quite rightly—there is not quite the use of peat that there used to be, as it is such an important part of our ecosystem.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, no doubt the Minister will be aware that the Climate Change Committee, in its 2018 annual report to Parliament, noted that there had been no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture between 2012 and 2017. Does he agree with the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation that the Government should “replace” the,
“voluntary industry-led framework, which has so far failed to meet emissions targets … with a stronger framework”?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, clearly we endorse the greenhouse gas plan by industry, but we are looking at further ways in which we can improve it. In fact, we have commissioned research from Scotland’s Rural College into greenhouse gas mitigation options to address what we think are existing knowledge gaps. Certainly we are working and commissioning on how best we can reduce emissions from agriculture, which produces about 10% of our emissions.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, if and when we sign a trade agreement with the United States, is it not likely that food prices will fall and environmental concerns relating to standards will rise?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the basis of precision farming in this country is that we think we produce excellent food—the best in the world—both for home consumption and for export. Whatever trade agreements we have with any countries, clearly we have our own standards, which will remain. I think that people should buy British products because they are the best.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister to return to the question of peat? If what he says is true—I am sure it is—that peat is the best capturer of carbon, can he tell us why peat-enhanced compost is still available for sale, even though common or garden gardeners such as myself try not to use it and there are alternatives available that are just as effective?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I shall look precisely at where the supplies are coming from, but I can say now that we as gardeners and horticulturalists should be using alternatives. As I have said, peatland is one of the most important parts of our ecosystem, and that is why we are seeking to restore 148,000 acres of it.
Police: Recruitment Criteria
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the entry criteria for joining police forces in England and Wales; and what plans, if any, they have to reform such criteria.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this Government’s reforms are designed to make the police workforce more capable, flexible and professional. We established the College of Policing as the first professional body for policing, charged with setting standards, including for police recruitment. The college has implemented a major reform of entry routes through its policing education qualification framework, which will ensure that policing can continue to attract the brightest and best recruits from a wide range of backgrounds.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware of the four pilot schemes—taking place, I believe, at the instigation of the College of Policing—in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and south Wales, which require all recruits to undertake a three-year apprenticeship leading to a university degree? My information is that this training would incur an additional cost of £24,000 per recruit, with failure by the recruit leading presumably to dismissal. I understand that other forces are committed to this route for recruiting by 2020. Does the Minister think this is a wise use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money, when there is a clear public demand for thousands more front-line, well-trained police officers on the ground in communities, with or without degrees, reaping essential intelligence, responding to calls and reassuring the public at a time of unprecedented increase in serious, violent street crime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is important to have a wide range of entry routes for people who wish to join the police, which all conform to very high standards. I cannot comment on the cost that the noble Lord outlined, but it is really important that people should not have to have a degree to enter the police. There is no requirement for that, but the standard is set for degree-level qualification at the end of the training process.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, will these reforms mean that, in future, only men and women of the very highest ability are appointed to the post of chief constable, unlike Mr Mike Veale, whose disastrous Operation Conifer has inflicted such dreadful and unfair damage on Sir Edward Heath?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have to admire my noble friend for managing to weave in something that is so important to him. To make a very serious point, the whole aim of this is to have the highest standards of policing in our forces.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Scottish Justice Minister has ruled out direct entry into Police Scotland at inspector and superintendent level, because he considers experience of policing to be essential. He says:
“While training is, of course, important, officers must carry the authority and the respect of communities they serve, and also of their colleagues”.
I strongly agree. Why does the Home Office not agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Both are important. Those with the skills required to go into the direct entry scheme are subject to very rigorous training and a rigorous selection process. The noble Lord is absolutely right that training thereafter, and experience in policing, are essential.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that requirements for degrees in many of the paths to become a police officer do not prevent good candidates with the required skills being appointed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is absolutely right that good-quality candidates should be allowed to come forward. That is why there are a variety of options available to candidates. As I said to the noble Lord earlier, it is important that candidates do not necessarily need a degree to be able to go into the police force, but that they are educated and trained to degree level going forward, to make the best police officers.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the purpose behind the College of Policing’s accreditation system is to do two things? First, as the Minister has already said, it aims to make sure that the training received is of a high standard—surely we all agree with that. At the moment, 50% of police officers recruited are graduates already. Secondly, for officers who have worked for 30 or 40 years in some cases, perhaps investigating murder, cybercrime, rape and other policing matters, it is really important that we accredit to graduate standard, because it allows those officers to move on to other careers at the end of their police career. It is not good enough to carry on as we have in the past, where we have not accredited great skills—but that does not mean to say that everyone has to be a graduate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right and, of course, speaks from the highest experience. To be able to go on and do something else with the skills that you have accrued through, say, policing is really important. On the point about accreditation, it has to be recognised that the pattern of crime, and therefore of policing, has changed so much over the years. Police need to be trained in the new and emerging activities that criminals are undertaking—digital crime, for example.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, in the days of national service—my noble friend will not remember those herself—12 weeks of very tough basic training, followed by 16 weeks at an officer cadet school, produced some outstanding officers who were well qualified for the job.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am not sure what the question was. However, my noble friend makes the point that the most rigorous training processes need to be gone through to make the best police officers. Also, because crime is changing, accreditation and standards need to be set for the new environment in policing.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s assurance that she does not think it is essential for everyone to have a degree in order to be a police officer. However, does she agree that, with or without a degree, it is absolutely essential that those who get to the top echelons of the police service need the respect of people who have spent a career on the front line? Those on the front line are likely to have very little respect for people at the top if they have never had to do the day in, day out activities that police work entails, which are often dangerous and are essential to our community safety.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord goes to the point of leadership. The troops—the lower echelons, as he says—must have respect for those at the top. Therefore, those skills—which are not necessarily formed through degrees but rather through practical experience—are absolutely essential, in addition to the training and qualifications that they have.
Venezuela: Russian Troops
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the deployment of Russian troops in Venezuela.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, given the deteriorating political situation in Venezuela, we believe that the arrival of Russian military aircraft, military personnel and equipment at Caracas airport on 23 March is provocative and ill-conceived. The United Kingdom supports a resolution to the current crisis in Venezuela through a peaceful, democratic transition following free and fair presidential elections in accordance with international democratic standards, as demanded by the interim President, Juan Guaidó, and the national assembly, in line with the Venezuelan constitution.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
I thank the Minister. As in Syria, an opportunist Russia comes in to prop up a hugely unpopular President, seemingly impervious to the appalling suffering of the people—only this time it is in America’s back yard. President Trump has called on Russia to “get out”, and Secretary of State Pompeo has said that America,
“will not stand idly by”,
so clearly this is potentially a very serious situation. Can the Minister give the House any update on the scale of Russian deployment or its mission?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Russia is sending military aid to Venezuela. Troops arriving in public view do not help to resolve the crisis in Venezuela, and the US—as he rightly acknowledges—has been strongly critical. While Foreign Minister Lavrov’s defence remains that this is part of a regular military deployment, bearing in mind the situation prevailing in Venezuela it is far from that. This is why we believe it is time to ratchet up the diplomatic efforts, as the United Kingdom has been doing in working hand in glove with the Lima Group.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I think all sides of the House are at one in condemning Russia for this external interference and in saying that the only way forward is for Maduro to leave and for free and fair elections to take place. However, also key for the future is the terrible economic situation and the humanitarian crisis—inflation this year is forecast at 10 million per cent. What are we going to do? Are we working with our allies to ensure that once we get rid of Maduro, we will have economic support for the people of Venezuela?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I totally concur with the noble Lord. He and I have talked about the situation prevailing in Venezuela. He is quite right that the humanitarian situation is dire. In a recent survey of hospitals, 88% were reported to be in dire need of medical equipment. There is one small glimmer of hope: I heard this morning that it has been agreed that the International Committee of the Red Cross will be given access and, on the timeline for that, I can share with your Lordships that we are hoping it will start delivery of aid within the next two weeks. The noble Lord is also right to draw attention to the dire economic consequences. I assure him that we are working to step in with partners through the Lima Group and with European partners. What is required right now, I concur, is free, independent, fair elections, and support for the interim President to ensure this happens in a short time.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
Can my noble friend bring the House up to date? As a counterpoise to military intervention by Russia, what progress has the United Kingdom made in bringing humanitarian aid to this terrible crisis? And has any progress been made in persuading the leader of the Labour Party that President Maduro should not receive any support at all?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am sure that, like all of us, my noble friend heard the shadow Minister’s words about the support for the position across your Lordships’ House. It is important that, wherever we are in the world, we get behind the interim President, most importantly because he is the representative voice of the people of Venezuela. As I have already indicated, we are seeing a small glimmer of hope in the access provided to the International Committee of the Red Cross, but clearly much more needs to be done.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Would the Minister agree that Russia becomes more assertive with failing western diplomacy and when it perceives weakness? If strength is the answer, how will our policy towards Venezuela be sharpened to counter the Russian presence?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, diplomacy is one Britain’s great strengths on the world stage, and I assure the noble Lord of the strength of our diplomacy, both in the region and with European partners. Indeed, 24 EU member states have now recognised Juan Guaidó as the interim President. I believe we need to pursue that particular avenue to ensure international pressure continues. We are looking at broadening sanctions on Venezuela but at the same time ensuring humanitarian aid, both food and medical, is delivered, which the people of Venezuela are in dire need of.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Venezuela owes Russia $3.1 billion in payments for military and other equipment, and it owes Rosneft $2 billion, so that is $5 billion altogether. Clearly, one can understand the Russian interest in this, but we must have been aware that Russia was going to deploy troops, yet it seems to have gone under the radar. In that context, can I ask the Minister how concerned we are with the huge Chinese investment and the pull that they are beginning to put on to Venezuela in the same way?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord will be aware, both Russia and China continue to recognise the Maduro regime. In terms of the justification for what Russia has done, as I have alluded to, Russia has a long-standing commitment to sharing military deployments and is claiming that this is part of that. We recognise that the situation in Venezuela tells a different story, and that is why it is important that we increase our diplomatic efforts, broaden international alliances in the region through the Lima Group and add our efforts to ensuring that we isolate those who are responsible. To Maduro there is a simple message: “Step aside. The people of Venezuela demand it; the people of the world demand it”. I hope our Russian and Chinese colleagues are listening very carefully. We continue to work bilaterally and through international organisations to deliver just that message.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that ratcheting up diplomatic efforts is going well with our European partners. Has the Foreign Office done sufficient work yet on how we will replace that European diplomatic network if we crash out of the EU without a deal within the next 10 days?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I can speak directly to that: we continue to work with European partners. Last week, I was at the United Nations, where we were working hand in glove with both Germany and France on important issues, including the promotion of women in peace-keeping. We will continue to strengthen those international alliances. I want to be absolutely clear that, notwithstanding our departure from the European Union, we remain part of Europe. Our European alliances are important, and we continue to strengthen and collaborate on them. The Iran nuclear deal and the nuclear proliferation deal are recent examples of how European partners continue to work together. We are beyond Brexit when it comes to international co-operation—that will continue internationally and with our European partners.
Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill
Tuesday 2nd April 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 View all Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that I was asked by my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald, Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire, to take this Bill through your Lordships’ House. I give great credit to my right honourable friend for supporting Finn’s cause and, with his customary doggedness and skill, successfully steering the Bill through all its stages in another place. The Bill will make it easier to prosecute people, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, who are suspected of causing unnecessary suffering to service animals, chiefly police dogs and horses, and dogs working for the Prison Service. Our Second Reading debate showed that the Bill received unqualified support from all sides of the House. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is most reassuring that there are indeed matters on which we all unreservedly can agree.
I also congratulate PC Dave Wardell, along with Sarah Dixon and her colleagues on the Finn’s law team, on their successful campaign which led to the introduction of the Bill. Lastly, I thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner and his officials for supporting the Bill and for the assistance that they have provided me throughout this process.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Order laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, 10 orders have already been made in relation to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. If approved by Parliament and made, this 11th order will be the next step in bringing to life the five devolution deals which the Government have agreed with Greater Manchester since 2014. It fulfils the commitment that the Government made to the combined authority in the first devolution deal, agreed in November 2014, that the mayor would have powers over bus franchising and smart ticketing.
As agreed by Greater Manchester, the order makes the mayor responsible for all operational matters relating to bus services. It will enable the mayor to fund and deliver improved bus services across Greater Manchester. This means that people will be able to see clearly who is responsible for changes to bus services and hold the mayor to account for this. It will also replace the existing Transport for Greater Manchester Committee with a new committee of the same name, chaired by the mayor and with representatives of all the constituent councils, to co-ordinate transport across Greater Manchester.
This order will be made, if Parliament approves, under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required by the 2016 Act, along with this order we have laid a report which provides details about the provisions for the transfer of powers on concessionary bus fares from Transport for Greater Manchester to the combined authority, to be exercised by the mayor.
Before laying this order, the Secretary of State has considered the statutory requirements in the 2009 Act. He is satisfied that these requirements are met. In short, he considers that making the amendments to the combined authority’s powers would be likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions across the Greater Manchester area. He has also had regard to the impact on local government and the identities and interests of local communities. Further, as required by statute, the 10 constituent councils, the mayor and the combined authority have consented to the making of this order.
I turn to the details of the draft order, which builds on the powers that were given to combined authorities when the Bus Services Act came into force. This Act gave mayoral combined authorities new powers to improve bus services in their areas using a range of options such as smart ticketing, bus franchising and partnership delivery models with bus operators. The order we are debating gives responsibility for those powers, which are currently exercisable by the combined authority, to the mayor. This also means that the mayor will be able to raise a precept to pay for these changes. Currently, the councils that make up the combined authority pay for transport through a levy issued by that authority.
In addition, the order transfers the concessionary travel power from Transport for Greater Manchester, which is the public body responsible for delivering transport services across Greater Manchester, to the mayor. Reimbursing bus operators in Greater Manchester for both mandatory and discretionary fares and subsidies currently costs £86.7 million, funded by the 10 constituent councils. This order means that the constituent councils will carry on paying for these fares and subsidies to fund bus services, but caps the amount at £86.7 million. If the mayor wants to provide further funding for buses, he will have to do it through his mayoral precept.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to this debate. I represented one of the constituencies in Greater Manchester for 18 years, and served on one of its councils—Stockport—for eight years. Although I will make comments, ask questions and seek reassurances from the Minister, my view is that this Motion should be agreed. I am grateful to Transport for Greater Manchester for the briefing it has supplied to me and, I am sure, to other Members of the House.
It might be helpful, however, to remind noble Lords how we got here. The 10 local authorities have a history of vigorous rivalry stretching back more than 100 years: in sports, obviously, but also in civic matters—which is why we have an outstanding collection of amazing town halls, of which Manchester’s, which most closely resembles this building, is the one that your Lordships will be familiar with.
A less positive side of that history is that for many years, and in many places, zero-sum politics has been played between the different authorities. It is very much to the credit of the leadership of the local authorities in Greater Manchester that, over the past 15 or so years, zero-sum politics has been replaced by co-operation and joint working on an increasing scale.
The new working arrangements which have been developed, first in the local democracy Act 2009 and then in the moves by the coalition to start the combined authority on its current route, have been very much in response to co-operative working, rather than being pushed upon those councils. It is extremely important in implementing this order to retain that bottom-up push for devolution, rather than imposing a solution on any or all of the local authorities and civic societies. That requires the careful balance of different interests which is in place at the moment. This is very much admired, not just in the UK but around the world. Greater Manchester has a constant stream of visitors from other cities and regions asking how it was done and how they can emulate it.
I regret that in 2016 the new Conservative Government imposed a mayoral model, which makes some of this consensus working more difficult. However, in the policy framework we have at the moment, we have to get on with it and make the best we can of it. When the combined authority was set up, the 10 local authority leaders were unanimous in rejecting the mayoral model, which is why it did not come in in 2011, during the coalition period. The current Government, as well as imposing the mayoral model, has not always had a consistent view about what the outcomes should be. I was pleased to hear the Minister mention the northern powerhouse, but he skipped over the fact that the attempt by Greater Manchester Combined Authority to have a handle on the allocation of the Northern Rail franchise was not accepted; indeed, Transport for the North has also found it difficult to get the leverage it believes is important to make sure that transport investment goes to the right place.
The order gives important expanded powers—not just expanded functions but expanded powers of taxation. My questions, and the reassurances I seek, are very much focused on how the mechanics will work and how the admirable pattern of co-operation, joint working and decision-making that we have in Greater Manchester at the moment will be entrenched, emphasised and enhanced in the new order. Crucial to this will be, first, the operation of the mayor’s powers to appoint members of the new joint transport committee and, secondly, his capacity to delegate those decisions. There are two big issues there at the moment, and probably others as well: the whole bus franchising issue, and smart ticketing.
The joint transport committee clearly has to have broad geographical representation. It needs to have expertise and be representative of the various strands of political opinion and thought in Greater Manchester. It is important to look at that, but also at the actual delegation of decisions which are going to be handed to it. You clearly need people on the committee with local knowledge, and people who are able to evaluate—and possibly have a hand in agreeing—what the tax and precept-setting power should be and how it should be exercised.
That brings me to my first question on the big issue of the taxation trap. The £86.7 million is currently raised on a per head basis. Any additional precept will be raised on the basis of house value, through the council tax system. To quote from the brief provided to me by Transport for Greater Manchester:
“One of the effects of the above is that councils with a high council tax base relative to their population benefit from expenditure being financed through a levy or statutory contribution, whereas councils (and their council tax-payers) with a low council tax base relative to their population benefit from expenditure being funded through a mayoral precept. The effect of switching from a levy to a precept produces significant winners (e.g. Manchester) and significant losers (e.g. Trafford)”.
It might just as well have also added: “e.g. (Stockport)”. In other words, the power to raise the precept will have a differential impact on the different boroughs within Greater Manchester.
The formula is described in the paper as requiring the “unanimous approval” of the 10 councils for it to be varied. What is the mechanism for actually raising the precept as opposed to changing the formula? Will it be via the mayor’s decision-making? Will it be via the new joint committee by majority? Will it be via the new joint committee by unanimity? Or will it require all the councils to reach a unanimous decision? Who will call the shots in the decision-making that lies ahead?
Linked to this is a consideration of the make-up of the committee itself. The present oversight committee—the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee—has 33 members. Under the new order, a committee with the same name but extra powers will be reduced from 33 members to 23. They will consist of: a representative of each council, except for Manchester, which will have two; an appointment by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which sounds as though it would be a council leader chosen collectively; an appointment by the mayor, which could mean that the mayor himself or an appointee of his will chair it; and 10 appointments from a pool of councillors who would be from the 10 authorities and representative of the political opinion across Greater Manchester. To quote again from the briefing of TfGM:
“Such appointments must ensure that the political balance on the joint committee reflects the political balance of councillors across GM and will be made in accordance with the preferences proposed by the three main political parties. This will be reflected in the Operating Agreement which will be agreed by each District”.
The Minister mentioned the parallel change in the rules whereby in future a number of decisions which can be taken simply by a majority of councils will be subject to the seven out of 10 rules. I certainly welcome that as making sure that there is a broad consensus, but does he understand and agree with the importance of delivering the same element in this order as far as that committee is concerned? What consideration was given to making that process easier to deliver by retaining the membership at its existing size of 33, rather than 23, which would allow two councillors from each authority to be appointed and make the questions of proportionality and representation easier to meet?
The joint working and co-operation of local authorities across Greater Manchester has been hard won and is now a model which many others seek to copy and which some, such as those just across the Pennines, have sadly failed to achieve. In giving assent to this order, I hope that noble Lords will share in our belief on these Benches that its operation must enhance that joint working and in no way become a lever to return to the bad old days of zero-sum politics.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this order to give it my strong support. I declare my interest as a resident of Manchester and in the light of the opening comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I am also a former city councillor and a former Member of Parliament for the city. The people of Greater Manchester desperately want an integrated transport system across the area. The order is a further step in the right direction to achieve this by unblocking some of the logjams currently in the system. Its primary purpose, as the Minister has well explained, is the transfer of further powers to the elected mayor of Greater Manchester—Andy Burnham—particularly transport functions of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority relating to buses. This is in line with the devolution agreements in Greater Manchester, which specifically provided that any potential future bus franchising and/or smart-ticketing functions should be the responsibility of the mayor.
I wish to make three quick points. First, I welcome the establishment of the joint transport committee to cover Greater Manchester. I hope that this smaller group will bring a new, coherent focus on an integrated transport system across the area, covering not only the buses but the Metrolink light rail system and the region’s train services, with a particular emphasis on establishing a multimodal through-ticketing system, which is so strongly supported by all local people.
Secondly, we have heard some detail about finance, and it is pleasing that the 10 districts in Greater Manchester have agreed that all transport functions relating to buses that currently sit with the combined authority should become mayoral functions and the current expenditure level of around £87 million will continue to be paid by those councils. However, any additional expenditure on buses beyond that figure should be funded by the mayor through the transport precept or other resources available to the mayor. I believe that this should underpin the cost of new bus passes for 16 to 18 year-olds, which are about to be piloted and then rolled out for all 16 to 18 year-olds for the future. However, the amount of the precept does not form part of the constituent districts’ budget, and the mayoral precept itself will be subject to its own referendum triggers—perhaps a topic we should not pursue on this occasion.
Thirdly, the Bus Services Act 2017 allows an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme. While this is not full reregulation of the buses, which London benefits from, it is clearly the best option available in the circumstances. The order facilitates the franchising option, and I now hope that the mayor, Andy Burnham, will grasp the opportunity and see it as a vital step in the overarching aim of delivering the integrated transport system that the people of Greater Manchester dearly want.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I very much welcome this order. It is another part of the transfer of powers to the northern powerhouse, to the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and to the combined authority. It will be able to deliver bus franchising, smart ticketing and the multimodal ticketing system that my noble friend talked about.
I was involved in the passage of the Bus Services Act through your Lordships’ House and I am very supportive of bus franchising; the mayor will be able to set the fares, the routes and the timetables and the bus companies can then deliver those services. I think that is a very good way forward and I endorse what my noble friend Lord Bradley said: I hope that the Mayor of Greater Manchester will be able to move forward and introduce bus franchising, which is what people want to see locally.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised a number of questions I was going to raise, so I hope he will get a response. They were about the taxation trap—we clearly have the same briefing—and the issue of the oversight committee, so I look forward to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, on those matters and on the question raised by my noble friend Lord Bradley about bus passes for16 to 18 year-olds. I shall leave the matter there because those points have been raised. As I said, I very much support the introduction of the order, like the other noble Lords who have spoken.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this important SI. It is worth noting that in the other place there was just one contribution from the Official Opposition, which welcomed the SI and commended the Government for acting very quickly in bringing it forward following the request from Greater Manchester. I am very grateful for that support in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, rightly referred to the civic pride and sense of togetherness in Manchester, and the rivalry between some of the boroughs and authorities that now make up the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. All that is absolutely true—I was in Manchester recently and saw the strength of the Manchester area. Of course, we were all very conscious of that at the time of the dreadful terrorist attack on the Manchester Arena—the sense of coming together in the area was very strong. I was there recently to launch the ESOL funding programme. There was a very good bid from Manchester and I was very conscious, again, of the sense of coming together and civic pride.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, also asked about financial arrangements, particularly in relation to the mayoral precept. It is the position that the mayor makes proposals which can be overturned by a two-thirds vote, which is a veto of seven of the 10 authorities. The noble Lord went on to ask about measures in relation to oversight in this committee. It is a streamlined committee, a fact welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, for which I am very grateful. The order reflects the request for flexibility on the membership of the committee. Greater Manchester asked for the reduction to 23 members, and based on what the noble Lord was saying about responding to the bottom-up approach and sensing what is important in the area, we went along with the request. We judged that it is reasonable and will lead, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said, to more streamlined decision-making. I think it maintains—not in the same proportions, I accept—some of the checks and balances that are needed.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, for saying that transferring powers to the Mayor of Manchester is a step in the right direction. Although the mayor is not of my politics I think that people locally recognise that he has been doing a good job and giving some sense of direction to Manchester. That is a good thing and it is true of all our metro mayors. It is something we should welcome widely and, as the noble Lord rightly said, it opens up possibilities in relation to the franchising schemes and so on as well. I confirm that I think it does underpin the costs of the young people’s passes in relation to the financial settlement.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the welcome he gave to the order; he reiterated some of the questions I hope I have dealt with. This is an important part of the suite of powers that were promised to Manchester: we have been listening to the people of Manchester and responding to what they have asked for, and this represents another step in that journey. I am very grateful to the support given by noble Lords and I beg to move.
NATO
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, this week marks 70 years since 12 nations put their signatures to the North Atlantic Treaty and agreed that an attack on one was an attack on all. It is a privilege for me to open this debate celebrating the founding of that august institution, and I look forward to hearing the informed contributions of noble Lords who have had direct involvement in NATO, whether militarily, diplomatically or politically.
It is surely apt to use this moment to reflect on the achievements of what is rightly hailed as the most powerful defensive alliance the world has ever seen. During the Cold War, an age of unprecedented risk from atomic weapons and Soviet expansion, NATO provided the nuclear umbrella that is our ultimate deterrent, and a vital conventional shield against aggression. It is worth asking ourselves: but for NATO’s deterrence, would the Berlin Wall have fallen some 30 years ago? Would the values of the West have triumphed? Would millions in eastern Europe have been given the opportunity to live lives that are freer, more secure and more prosperous?
In signing the treaty seven decades ago, President Harry Truman was moved to express his belief that had NATO,
“existed in 1914 and 1939 … it would have prevented the acts of aggression which led to two world wars”.
It is of course impossible to test Truman’s hypothesis, but there is little doubt about the role NATO has played over the last seven decades in sparing us the terrible prospect of a third world war. Nor is there any doubt about the significance of the UK’s involvement in alliance successes. We were one of its 12 founder members; we were the providers of both of its first headquarters in London; and our great wartime general, Lord Ismay, was NATO’s first Secretary-General.
Today NATO is much more than the entity it was under Lord Ismay. For one thing, it has grown. Last month we marked the 20th anniversary of the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, and the 15th of the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Yesterday it was the turn of Albania and Croatia to celebrate their 10th anniversary as part of the alliance.
At the same time, as the threats have developed, so NATO has adapted. I remember some arguing, during my first stint as Defence Minister in the mid-1990s, that NATO was no longer all that relevant in a post-Cold War world. But in the modern era the alliance has repeatedly proven its worth, from ending conflicts in the western Balkans to supporting the United States after the atrocity of 9/11. On that occasion, the allies invoked Article 5 for the very first time, leading to the international response in Afghanistan designed to stop that country becoming a haven for terrorism. Significantly, NATO personnel remain there today, training local forces and creating the conditions for peace.
NATO has always stepped up, and I argue that today it is more relevant than ever. Consider the dangers we face. Russia is once more resurgent. Its pattern of aggression over the past decade—from illegal activity in Ukraine and Crimea to its interference in the sovereign affairs of other states and its deployment of nerve agents on the streets of Salisbury—undermines its claim to be a responsible international partner upholding the rules-based international system. At the same time, we are wrestling with a multitude of threats emanating from NATO’s southern periphery, including terrorism, instability and illegal migration. With Russia’s more challenging activity in the high north and the Atlantic, it can truly be said that NATO now has a 360-degree focus.
We often say that NATO represents the bedrock of European security. Equally, though, the commitment of the United Kingdom to that security remains as steadfast as ever. We have always been at the forefront of the alliance, benefiting as we do from Europe’s largest defence budget. As we mark 50 years of the UK’s continuous at sea deterrent, it is also worth reflecting that we are the only ally to assign all our nuclear forces to NATO’s defence, which we have done since 1962. All member states benefit from our nuclear capability, which gives the alliance another centre of decision-making to complicate the calculations of our adversaries. Indeed, the Brussels summit declaration last year recognised that critical NATO contribution.
At the same time, we hold the posts of deputy supreme allied commander Europe and chairman of NATO’s Military Committee. We host HQ MARCOM at Northwood; the HQ of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) at Imjin Barracks, Innsworth; the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre at RAF Molesworth; and the Joint Electronic Warfare Core Staff at RNAS Yeovilton.
Besides the nearly 1,000 British personnel serving in NATO’s command structure, we are contributing across alliance operations. As part of the Enhanced Forward Presence, we have forces on the ground commanding a battalion-size battle group in Estonia and a reconnaissance squadron in Poland. Our troops are also strengthening the security infrastructure of nations stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan. In the skies, our air force is policing the airspace above the Baltic and Iceland, and we have recently made a significant contribution to NATO’s Readiness Initiative, adding Apache attack and Wildcat reconnaissance helicopters to our Estonian presence. Significantly, the UK was also the first ally to offer offensive cyber capabilities to the instruments at NATO’s disposal.
The central proposition that I seek to advance today is that NATO’s importance is increasing. The world is becoming more complex and unpredictable. We have entered a new age of constant competition. It is an increasingly grey zone of proxy war, cyberattack and fake news. The boundaries between peace and war are blurring. We do not know what dangers lie down the line.
Since the Wales summit of 2014, the UK, alongside the US, has taken a leading role in making the alliance fit for purpose. Major strides have been made. The alliance is evolving rapidly. It has developed a stronger, larger command structure—influenced by senior British military officers in NATO—and has agreed to augment its current staff with more than 1,200 extra personnel. It has upped its spending. Non-US spending increased by $87 billion between 2014 and 2018. It has also widened its geographical focus to take a 360-degree approach to security, ensuring that the alliance is able to respond to threats and challenges from all directions. This includes contributing to NATO’s missions in Afghanistan and Iraq to build long-term stability, and anticipating growing competition in the Arctic.
However, given the pace of change and the persistence of our adversaries, the alliance cannot afford to rest on its laurels. Indeed, it must inject greater pace into its transformation. So in December the UK will host NATO heads of state and government. This will be an opportunity to do three things. First, we should remind parliaments and the public across the alliance of the need to show unity and resolve in the face of determined aggressors whose game plan is to divide and rule. In the short term that is about standing up to the Kremlin’s breaches of the INF Treaty and dealing with the threat of new Russian missiles. In the long term it is about continuing to show that adventurism has its cost. We should never forget that, as Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said:
“NATO is 29 allies … friends. Russia doesn't have that, China doesn't have that”.
Secondly, it will be about demonstrating that our words are matched by action. Central to this is NATO’s Readiness Initiative, which will enhance our deterrence by improving the alliance’s readiness and responsiveness, as well as its ability to reinforce. It will also be about getting to grips with NATO governance, which in the past has suffered from inefficiency and poor project management. It will be about reforming the headquarters function to speed decision-making processes and enable even faster reactions on the ground, and it will be about strengthening NATO-EU co-operation so that effort is complemented and not duplicated. Significantly, work is already under way to bolster a joint approach to hybrid warfare.
Above all, achieving such bold ambitions will require bolstering burden sharing. All allies have committed to spend 2% of GDP on defence and 20% of that on major equipment by 2024. This will be the most significant strengthening of NATO’s collective defence in a decade, but we must maintain our momentum if we are to adjust to new and evolving threats. Despite important progress, the US still accounts for approximately 50% of the allies’ combined GDP and more than 70% of their combined defence expenditure. Expecting US taxpayers to keep picking up the tab is unreasonable, especially when other allies are running up big surpluses.
This brings me to the third item on our December agenda. This is simply to recognise the pivotal role that the US continues to play in transatlantic defence. It is true that the security of Europe and the security of the United States are intimately bound together, united as they are by the common threads of democracy, liberty and the rule of law, and it is true that NATO is the living embodiment of our transatlantic bond—but it is also true that we take these links for granted at our peril. Any weakening of those bonds would make us all less secure.
Back in 1949, 12 allies gathered together and vowed never again to let conflict devastate the continent. As President Truman said in his historic speech:
“If there is anything inevitable, if there is anything unconquerable in the world today, it is the will of the people of all nations for freedom and peace”.
Since those days, NATO has proved the best guarantor of that peace and that freedom. It has been tried and tested; it has never failed. But in some senses, of course, I know that I am preaching to the converted. Most, if not all, Members of your Lordships’ House grew up in the chill of the Cold War. When the Soviet Union was casting its long shadow, we had abundant cause to be thankful for NATO’s defensive shield, yet in today’s very different world of more opaque dangers, a new generation does not have quite the same affinity for our treasured alliance, despite its self-evident importance.
So, in this anniversary year, we must seize the opportunity to remind both parliamentarians and the wider public at large about the value that the alliance brings. Indeed, we are already doing just that, not simply through debates such as today’s but through other means, for example a NATO 70 campaign run by our Armed Forces, our representation on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, whose current president represents Bridgend in the other place, and the leaders’ meeting in London in December. For seven decades NATO has safeguarded our people and our prosperity. By renewing our pledge to empower the alliance, we will ensure that it continues to protect us all for 70 years and more into the future. I beg to move.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the Minister for arranging this welcome debate, even if the short notice given has deprived us of a number of wise contributors who might otherwise have wanted to join us.
Those in 1949 who contemplated or even wanted a North Atlantic Treaty that would be time-limited would have been stunned but hugely impressed, 70 years on, at this anniversary today. NATO is simply a remarkable and unique alliance of free nations. Originally forged in response to the European dominoes tumbling to Joseph Stalin, NATO was, without firing a shot in anger, to see off its main adversary, the USSR. We then saw it become the bridge between the post-Soviet world and the West in the Partnership for Peace. Then we saw it using its military and political power to stop the carnage in Bosnia and to end and reverse the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. After that, we saw it join up with the European Union to prevent a bloody civil war developing in what is now known as North Macedonia—a good new story to cheer us in the 70th year of NATO, with that new country coming into the alliance. After the trauma of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States and, as the Minister said, the invoking for the very first time of the treaty’s Article 5, the alliance took over organising the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. That has been a quite remarkable evolution: from the birth of NATO in Washington in 1949 to the security challenges of today and tomorrow. Those challenges are, in many ways, as difficult and complex as those in NATO’s successful past, but they are challenges that, frankly, only NATO can face. NATO is our most precious and unrivalled asset in our fractious, unstable and highly unpredictable world.
No defence alliance in the history of our planet has survived, or indeed thrived, as long as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and I believe that it has done so for three principal reasons. The first is because NATO has the capacity to evolve and transform to deal with changing security landscapes. The second is because NATO has maintained its military credibility and deterrence capacity. Thirdly, NATO has nurtured and protected that towering strength which is the value set of its constituent nations: the rule of law and an independent judiciary; free speech and a free press; sustainable democratic institutions; separation of church and state; and a tolerance of contrary views. These are the foundations of our free societies and are what give us our moral authority and political advantage in the world. However, as the Minister said, none of these reasons can be taken for granted and NATO will always be a work in progress. So long as the world keeps changing and new threats to our societies emerge and mutate, then NATO, too, has to change.
As the Minister told us, the first Secretary-General of NATO—like me and like Lord Carrington, who came after him, a former British Cabinet Minister—was Lord Ismay, one-time general and chief of staff to Churchill. In his final speech in Bonn before he stood down, he said that,
“a defensive shield has been built up which, though not yet as strong as might be wished, is an essential feature of the deterrent to aggression. Who would have believed that sovereign States would entrust their precious armed forces to the command of nationals other than their own in times of peace? But this is what has come to pass”.
It was indeed extraordinary then and it was true as well, and it is just as remarkable and true today.
What should NATO do now? And what should the United Kingdom—whether in or out of the European Union—do to pay more than lip service to what government Ministers constantly call the cornerstone of Britain’s defence? Priority number 1, in my view, is to maintain the military effectiveness and deterrent strength of the alliance. The bad news is that the 2% of GNP target is met by only five of the 29 members of NATO, with some countries lamentably behind the freely made commitments that they took on. I was in Slovenia the week before last and Prague the previous week making the point about their inadequate responses to the 2% target—doing it in person and in theatre. However, gross figures do not tell the whole story, as 2% spent on the wrong capabilities adds very little to effectiveness. Of course, the good news is that, since the Wales summit, there has been a growth in collective defence expenditure in Europe of $87 billion, with half the countries now spending over the target of 20% on equipment.
Priority number 2, in my view, is addressing our weaknesses—the soft underbelly of an alliance which, in spite of the burden-sharing debate, is still formidable and outspends any potential adversary. That is why these adversaries, whether in states or as individuals, have turned their tactics to interfering in democratic processes, exploiting splits among us, hijacking public debates, dominating the cyber world and subverting electronic communications. That is why, in NATO and in its nations, we need more investment in intelligence, in cyber professionalism and in information dissemination. That information campaign might start here in this country. Can the Minister tell us why, while the Russian embassy has sent out detailed briefings to MPs and Peers on the Russian position on the INF treaty, and while parliamentarians receive in their post China Daily on a daily basis, we get little or nothing on NATO positions from our own Government?
Indeed, I took the opportunity of looking at the section on NATO and the UK on the Foreign Office website today. It has only two items dated 2019, although we are now into April, and both were dated 21 January: one was connected to the statement on Salisbury and the other to the Prime Minister’s statement on Brexit—that was one of very many statements on Brexit but only one is on the website. The only item on the INF treaty, on which a hugely important debate is ongoing in Europe and the United States at the moment, was dated 4 December and was simply a restatement of the NATO Foreign Ministers’ statement. We are not doing anything like enough to disseminate information about what is happening in NATO.
My priority number three is maintaining the nuclear element of the alliance. The American, British and French nuclear forces, along with the other weapons on European soil, have been the backbone of a posture that has made conventional war unthinkable. They are as important today as they ever were.
My priority number four is Russia. The NATO-Russia Council, of which I was the first chairman, should still be a powerful venue for dialogue. Resuming the formality and depth of the NATO-Russia Council would not in any way be seen as a concession to wholly unacceptable Russian behaviour in Ukraine, Crimea and Salisbury; instead, it would be a recognition that, in a hair-trigger nuclear world, we need to talk about what we agree on as well as why we disagree on other matters. The Russians and plenty of others in the world need to be reminded that NATO is, and always will be, a defence alliance; it does not represent a danger to any country or group that does not attack, threaten or subvert us. That message is as powerful and true today as it was on that April day in Washington in 1949.
My final priority is a plea for a return to American leadership. One of the saddest features of the Trump Administration has been their abdication from a global leadership role. Even America’s critics would concede that you do not really miss American leadership until it has gone. NATO is America’s best security bargain in its history. Let us hope that President Trump will take that point on board when he comes to London in December, and I hope that he will take on board, too, the point made to him today when Secretary-General Stoltenberg meets him in the Oval Office.
NATO is a precious legacy, left to us from a previous generation to be ours today. It is therefore our solemn responsibility to reinvigorate and reinforce this remarkable, irreplaceable alliance for the challenges that will face the next generation. That has to be the enduring message of this 70th anniversary.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, it is as ever a pleasure to speak in your Lordships’ House, but today perhaps I feel the privilege especially. I cannot report that, 70 years ago, a Bishop contributed to this House’s debate on the founding of NATO. Without the personal, military, diplomatic or political experience to which the Minister alluded, I am grateful for the forbearance of your Lordships in listening to my contribution today.
I am sometimes all too aware that bishops—and indeed many members of the clergy—like to hold that their pronouncements are of a prophetic character. At its best, that means telling hard truths to those in power. The importance of holding to account, and of setting out the likely consequences of a course of action, will be familiar to all who value the work of this place. However, I admit that this also means that the voice crying in the wilderness can sound like the voice of one who neither knows nor appreciates the challenges and hard choices that power presents.
It is a particular pleasure, therefore, to congratulate the noble Earl on bringing this Motion before the House. This truly is an anniversary to celebrate. It is an occasion to honour all our NATO partners—from the dozen of 70 years’ standing, to Montenegro, the most recent addition—and to honour our own nation’s significant, indeed defining, contribution in establishing the alliance, and our continuing commitment to it.
The diocese I serve has its own particular close connection to the Armed Forces, and through them to the alliance itself. Less than a fortnight ago, we saw one example of that commitment as we said a temporary goodbye to one of our own: HMS “Westminster”, one of the Type 23 frigates based in Portsmouth, departed for NATO duties in the Baltic. It was a reminder of our commitment, in the form of people and often very expensive kit; a gigantic aircraft carrier conducting asymmetric warfare, or the ability to combat ever more insidious, subtle and damaging cyberattacks. We can be proud that our commitment is translated into cash and that we can count ourselves one of the NATO members to contribute the requisite proportion of our GDP to defence.
Equally, however, I am seized of the importance of that contribution manifesting itself in the capability required to face down, deter and tackle any potential adversary or threat. I confess that, though I accept that the letter of our expenditure commitment is honoured, I remain to be wholly convinced that we obey the spirit quite so properly.
We must not forget that NATO is not just a defensive military enterprise: it is nothing less than a community of values. That was a point made abundantly clear when the treaty was signed in 1949, not least by Dean Acheson, the American Secretary of State. He said that yes, the alliance was to deter bullies—those who used, as he put it, “power to dominate others”—but in it also lay,
“the affirmation of moral and spiritual values which govern the kind of life they propose to lead”.
It was and is democracy’s shield and guarantor.
I am of course not blind to the nature of organisations. NATO’s foundations will have been the fruit of all kinds of motives: often complex, sometimes contradictory, and even ignoble. None the less, those do not detract from its purpose. Moral and spiritual values were at the heart of NATO’s foundation; they must also be at its heart now. But perhaps those values represent something more. Perhaps they represent our recognition that we are best served when we act closely in concert with our friends—with those who share our values. Such multilateralism has enormous merits, although, goodness knows, it presents challenges; people and nations bring conflicting motives and aspirations to the table. However, we do the most good, and serve our own interests best, when we act in communion. Even when we disagree, it is always better to continue to jaw-jaw and to differ well. That is nothing more than good, sound, practical politics—and, I might add, sound theology too. It was also the ambition of our forebears in Parliament. Standing alongside Dean Acheson in 1949 was our own Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin. He said that,
“democracy is no longer a series of isolated units. It has become a cohesive organism, determined to fulfil its great purpose”.
That purpose would best be achieved through multilateralism.
I need hardly tell this House that we live in interesting times. That is true of the debates, divisions and dissensions in the other place—and sometimes here. It is also true of the interesting environment into which the fine young men and women on board HMS “Westminster” are sailing. It is tempting to imagine these times solely in geopolitical terms: as a broad historical sweep of a big political canvas. I submit that we should—indeed must—think of them another way. I hope the House will forgive me for praying in aid Mr Bevin once again. In 1949, as the great men of affairs signed the treaty, he reminded them of the motive and force behind it:
“The common people (who only want to live in peace) have been unable to follow their peaceful pursuits or to sleep safely in their beds”.
Its work meant, and means, that ordinary people are able to follow their peaceful pursuits and sleep safely in their beds. I find it hard to imagine a better ambition for any public institution. These are words that might be engraved on all our hearts, especially at the present time.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that—except for a four-year break in the years after I came to your Lordships’ House from another place—I have served as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for 32 years, if noble Lords can believe that. I was recently vice-president of the assembly and I am currently a rapporteur to one of its committees.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, complained about the lack of information from the Government on the web. If he were to look up the website of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, he would find the report which I presented last November on Russian hybrid warfare which, I am glad to say, was adopted unanimously by the assembly.
The Minister referred to the current president, Madeleine Moon, who presides over the assembly with a great deal of distinction and to much admiration. That takes me back to my early days, when the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was Sir Thomas Dugdale, later the 1st Baron Crathorne and father of my noble friend Lord Crathorne, who inspired me, in my early days, to take up a political career. This debate completes the circle in many ways.
I am, and always have been, a great admirer of NATO. As the Minister said, it is perhaps the most successful defensive military alliance in history. Given the reborn posturing, outrages and mischief of Mr Putin’s Russia, I most strongly support the deployment of those four battlegroups in the Baltic and Poland, which cannot be seen, by any stretch of the imagination, to be offensive or regressive so far as Russia is concerned, but provide a vital tripwire.
However, I have a number of serious reservations about NATO’s forward thinking and housekeeping. The Minister referred to occasions when NATO is not as quick on its feet as it should be, and I very much agree on that. Frankly, the construction of the new headquarters in Brussels has been a joke. The decision to build it was taken in 1999 and plans were approved in 2003, with planned occupation 12 years later, in 2015. In fact, no real positive entry was made until last year, 2018.
Again, I am concerned to be told that the penny has dropped only recently about the major problems of moving heavy, bulky military equipment around Europe. The problems of low and unstable bridges or tunnels have caused all sorts of dilemmas. These are just two examples which do not give the impression of an organisation which is flexible, decisive and quick on its feet.
This afternoon, my principal concerns regard NATO’s internal financial management and bookkeeping. This is all audited by the International Board of Auditors for NATO, known as IBAN. It has highlighted a number of serious shortcomings, which have appeared in its reports. I have drawn some of these reservations to the attention of the Secretary-General twice, in public. On both occasions, I was rudely brushed aside and the questions I asked were ignored. I conclude that either he did not know the answer, in which case he should have, or he did not care, in which case I wonder if he ought to have the job at all.
To be fair, I got a letter from the Deputy Secretary-General on questions I put to her in November last year. I am glad to say I got a letter dated 13 March, just over two weeks ago. That followed another letter from her, dated 13 November last year, on questions I put in July.
I spoke in your Lordships’ House last June regarding IBAN’s published reservations about NATO’s accounting procedures. I will not repeat them now—they are on the record—but the problems persist. IBAN reports that there is progress, but no assurance that all NATO’s entities will improve their financial management reporting collectively and significantly, and there is a lack of unity and consistency in the systems and applications of financial reporting rules.
With regard to the 2018 audits, 39 opinions were issued by IBAN. Nineteen of those were unqualified, which is good. Twenty-three were qualified—which is not good. In two there was a denial of opinion by IBAN, and in one of those two IBAN had a problem—the impossibility of carrying out an audit due to the unreliability of the documents and figures submitted.
IBAN has repeated difficulty in dealing with the accounting representation of NATO’s tangible assets. This was one of the problems last year in terms of properties, plants and equipment. Again, IBAN tells us that there is no clear and consistent series of guidelines applicable by all to detect and deal with cases of fraud and corruption, which of course is so much a part of IBAN’s responsibility. Finally, IBAN is evidently concerned that no single responsible person in NATO seems to be charged with co-ordinating all these and other reservations. To sum up, there appears to be an unfortunate reluctance to respond and endorse too many of IBAN’s reservations and recommendations. I realise that the Minister may not be able to respond to all these comments today. I hope that he will write to me in the near future, and put a copy of his reply in the Library.
I will end by putting two questions which the Government might like to answer, and also to raise them with NATO itself. First, does NATO intend, effectively and sufficiently, to establish an internal audit capability in all NATO bodies—including ones concerning international staff? Also, regarding international staff, does NATO agree that an independent, professional internal audit force, compliant with the internal audit international standards, should report both to the Secretary-General directly and to the international staff audit committee?
Secondly, why has IBAN, which is made up of professional, experienced experts in public management and holds a broad understanding of NATO, not given advice in the international staff functional review? Noble Lords may feel that these are rather obscure issues, but a great deal of public money is involved in all NATO’s activities. However successful and admirable the alliance has been, it is very important that these sorts of questions do not give rise to the disquiet which they have done. They are worthy of answers.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling this debate. I fear that issues of defence seem to have little traction in this place, in the body politic as a whole or, indeed, in the nation at large. This debate was tabled at very short notice, as my noble friend Lord Robertson has said. That is unfortunate because I think a number of people who would have liked to have spoken have been unable to because of prior commitments.
Sadly, it tends to take a war to change the political and national interest in defence. There is no doubt that insufficient investment, both in intellectual understanding of the world in which we live—its relationship to our national grand strategy—and necessary defence funding, make war more likely. A splendid example of this is that 37 years ago today, the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands. The fact that there was tension down there was well above the radar horizon, but we were not focused on it. We withdrew HMS “Endurance” for a saving of £16 million, in what in those days were called the long-term costings. What did that cost our nation in terms of getting defence wrong? It cost us £3.5 billion, and 300 men killed, so debates such as this are crucial.
I have to say that it is rather refreshing to have a debate not directly linked to Brexit, but as is the case with so many things, there are significant issues involving the EU and NATO, and thus the dreaded B word does raise its head. The Minister and my noble friend Lord Robertson have explained that membership of NATO is fundamental to the defence of our nation, and they are right. It is also crucial to the defence of Europe, and be in no doubt—a secure, safe Europe is critical to the safety of our island home. What has been a concern for many years, as stated, is that the continental nations of Europe in NATO have for decades been getting defence on the cheap. Most have not invested sufficiently in their armed forces, and have relied on the USA and to a lesser extent—until recently—the United Kingdom to foot the bill. Even worse, when spending money, they have spent on lavish headquarters and extra, often undeployable people, rather than fighting equipment and fully deployable forces.
This situation, as has been mentioned, is slowly improving with the NATO commitment for countries to spend 2% of GDP on defence and enhancing the amount spent on new equipment and procurement. Most of them are not there yet, I am afraid, but there are moves in the right direction. Sadly, I feel the pressures for an EU army and the European Defence Union are pulling in another direction. The establishment of more headquarters and command structures, often replicating those that NATO already has in a suboptimal way, is dangerous posturing. One cannot help wondering if the PESCO arrangements are primarily aimed at spending more on EU defence firms and excluding other nations, such as the UK, rather than getting the best and most equipment for the limited funds available.
What is clear is that, whatever the outcome of Brexit, NATO is our nation’s most important defence alliance, and although the security of Europe is critical to the security of these islands, the United States is our most important defence ally. Having said that, we must continue to work closely with our European neighbours, as we have done for decades. The military links between us and France, for example—a country that does bear its proper burden of defence spending— are closer than any time since World War II. It is pointless having a grand military alliance if there are no threats. As has been said, 73 years ago this month in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill clearly articulated the geographical division of Europe:
“From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent”.
NATO was established on 4 April 1949 to counter the very real possibility of a Soviet invasion of Europe. We know, having seen all its documents following the collapse of the Soviet Union, that there was a very real intention to invade Europe and to take over the whole of that continent. Of course, NATO’s Article 5 was the solution that stopped the Iron Curtain moving westwards. We have had quotes from General Hastings Ismay; the one I rather like was when he said that the whole reason for NATO is,
“to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”.
Much has changed since then, I hasten to add.
With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in February 1991 and the Soviet Union disintegrating in December 1991, what was NATO for? I was made very aware of the problem when at the end of 1991, while serving as head of naval intelligence, I was tasked with going to NATO headquarters and leading the revision of MC 161, which is the NATO intelligence bible. That is extremely difficult when your enemy has suddenly disappeared but the world was full of risks and threats, which have increased over the last quarter of a century. The foundational concepts of the post-World War II belief in democracy and capitalism are challenged as never before, and the geographic dominance of—for want of better words—the West and its underlying precepts of justice, rule of law and human rights are at risk. Like-minded nations which believed in the world order established after World War II need to hold together. New and returning actors in Russia and the East do not accept the status quo; some wish the system to collapse and are demanding a rearrangement of the participants at the tables of power.
NATO has found itself involved in central Asia. As the Minister mentioned, its involvement in Afghanistan was a direct result of the only time in NATO’s history that Article 5 has been enacted. NATO was also involved in the Balkans, the Levant, the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the north African littoral. However, now we are confronted by a re-emergent Russia that has expansionist ambitions. Indeed, it seems intent on disregarding the world order and destabilising nations around the world.
I mentioned earlier that for the past 70 years, the continental NATO nations have relied on the USA—and, to a lesser extent, the UK—to foot the bill for their security and defence. I added the proviso “until recently” because since 2010, that has no longer been the case. The UK has reduced its military capability to a level that is insufficient to ensure its own security, let alone that of other nations. Indeed, I doubt that we are any longer capable of meeting fully all of our commitments to NATO.
To take just one fighting environment, that of the maritime, at the end of the Cold War we were seen as the bedrock of NATO’s naval power in the eastern Atlantic. Our submarines—some 21 of them—were capable of countering forays by Soviet nuclear submarines trying to penetrate south of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Hence they were able to protect US and UK ballistic missile submarines. They were also capable of penetrating the Soviet ballistic missile submarine bastions up in the Arctic, north of the Kola peninsula. They were supported by Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft—we had over 30 at that stage—that were probably the best in the world at that time. In addition, we had about 50 destroyers and frigates, a number of which were specialist anti-submarine platforms with towed array sonar.
The US striking fleet completely depended on us for anti-submarine warfare support. The UK ASW striking force consisted of an “Invincible” class carrier with ASW dunking sonar and sonar-buoy capable large helicopters, along with a mix of the assets I have talked about. We deployed Royal Marines annually: a full brigade was earmarked for war to north Norway to exercise with our allies and deter the Soviets from invasion. Holding north Norway would enable the US striking fleet to reach launch positions to decimate the Soviet military complexes in the Kola, which so threatened us.
What is the significance of the fact that we had that capability? Surely the Cold War is over. But the broad North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans are no longer safe and secure, and it is the Atlantic that links Europe to its most important ally. Russia has modernised her SSN fleet and is again deploying attack submarines south of the GIUK gap on a scale not seen since the end of the Cold War. Why? She is building a new class of submarine-launched ballistic missiles—not just a new class of submarines for them. She has used specialist submarines and surface ships to identify and interfere with the undersea cables that are so crucial to the global financial system. Why? Russia is making unsubstantiated claims of ownership to vast areas of the Arctic seabed. Norway feels herself under threat; her gas fields are crucial to our energy supply and economy.
NATO is, to an extent, waking up, seeing the need for a North Atlantic command. The UK has signed a memorandum of understanding with Iceland designed to enhance our capability for looking north. We have rejuvenated winter deployments to north Norway, although we now have only a commando group available for that. We have started looking north again, after focusing on south-west Asia for a very long time.
The United Kingdom is the most important maritime power in NATO Europe, but cuts to our Navy since 2010 mean that we can no longer ensure the security of the waters in which we live. Just in numerical terms, in comparison with the end of the Cold War we now have six versus 14 nuclear attack submarines, 19 versus 50 escorts, no MPA at all, 25 versus 77 heavy helicopters, and a commando group versus a commando brigade. Quality is important but numbers also matter.
It is right to celebrate NATO’s 70th birthday. It has been an amazing alliance—probably the most successful in history, and it has ensured our safety throughout its existence. We owe it to NATO, to Europe and to ourselves to reinvest in defence.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, there are two main foci to what I will say: the first is the pressure points facing NATO from both within and without; and the second is the need for all members to pull their financial weight and not shelter under the financial umbrella of those that do. Before addressing these matters, I should declare my interests, which—doubtless because of my lack of the martial spirit that shone through everything that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, said in his very telling speech—do not include any service in the Armed Forces. However, I served for a decade and a half as an adviser and non-executive director of Lockheed Martin in the UK. That is, I suppose, an opinion-forming bit of wallpaper to my speech, and explains my continuing shareholding in that corporation, as listed in the register of your Lordships’ House.
I begin with the five pressure points within and without NATO. First, as everyone has said, Russia continues to be the threat that it was back in 1949, when it was the USSR. I will not use otiose words to repeat that, but I believe it to be so, and anyone who lives in Ukraine, for example, knows it first hand.
Secondly, the endless incursions over and under the Baltic present a grave threat. It is good that we in the UK, and other NATO countries, have defended the skies above the Baltic and the waters underneath it. We have sent our little battle group to support NATO’s enhanced forward presence in Estonia, supported NATO’s readiness initiative, and done much more.
Thirdly, NATO needs to keep a very close watch on dogs that have not recently barked in the night. We saw them suddenly barking in Crimea, which seemed to come out of the blue to most people, including many in NATO itself. I look with great concern at the potential situation in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. It is a small place, not much bigger than Wales, and it is a very long way from Russia—about 300 miles—but only 30 miles from the borders of Poland. There is growing pressure within Russia to make that its next target for creating nuisance; perhaps that will come from demands for a better land corridor to Kaliningrad. There are already complaints within Russia that non-Russians are promoting the Germanisation of the place—I promise noble Lords that that is a word; I have looked it up—encouraged by those trying to resuscitate its so-called Prussian past and German heritage. After all, it is where Emmanuel Kant is buried, and it was once very German indeed. I do not know, but watch this space for the next possible nuisance-causing by Russia.
Countries such as Ukraine are desperate to become European, as once was Turkey, just like the countries on its border, such as Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, which are now full NATO members. Ukraine—or many in it—wants to be the same. Geographers have had many substantial theological debates about where Europe ends—maybe NATO should end wherever it is decided Europe does—but the thought of Ukraine actually joining NATO would make the Russian annexation of Crimea look like a picnic compared to the Putinesque explosion that would surely follow any such suggestion. Set that bit of futurology against the current display of fiction fast becoming fact, with the likely election of Volodymyr Zelenskiy—the comic who played his predecessor on TV for many years actually taking the presidency. That could lead to more instability in Ukraine and to a continuation of a geopolitical tragi-comedy, with a long way to go. If that is what the ballot boxes decide in the final run-off, I doubt that Ukraine’s outgoing President Poroshenko will take the decision lying down.
Equally, worrying issues are arising in a country which has been a long-standing and, in the past, most welcome part of NATO: Turkey. This very week we see incipient instability creeping in to a country that is armed to the teeth. Some commentators brand President Erdogan an elective dictator. I do not know whether or not that is the case, but I suspect that, like President Poroshenko in Ukraine, he will not take the results of elections in the three biggest Turkish cities, Ankara, Izmir and Istanbul, politically lying down after 16 years—a very long time—of unfettered power.
There is instability within NATO, as well as threats outside it. I do not know whether we have the mechanisms to reflect those and deal with them within NATO’s governance framework, which my noble friend Lord Jopling spoke about in his notable speech. However, a measured response to what might happen in Kaliningrad, what could happen in Ukraine, and what will probably happen in Turkey, will present challenges to NATO.
The second foci of my speech is that NATO will be an eternal part of the geopolitical landscape of Europe, and one which makes not just political and diplomatic demands but huge financial ones as well. Unlike many in your Lordships’ House, I do not intend to be diplomatic to a fault in this matter. We all benefit enormously from the shelter provided by the United States, under its kindly and dollar-decorated umbrella, under presidents of both political colours. It already more than meets NATO’s target of 2% of GDP spending, and always has done. As we know, only four of the 28 countries in NATO actually get near that. Two of them, Estonia and Latvia, are pretty small and have been threatened. To our credit, the UK has always done it; we honour our spending commitments on both NATO and foreign aid, which I strongly support. Other countries will soon be there: Poland will soon be pulling its weight, and we have to thank the coming generation of younger politicians in the Civic Platform Government who drove the expenditure to greater levels, such as Radek Sikorski, who was Defence Minister and then Foreign Minister. Happily, this has been carried on by the current PIS Government; Poland is, and will be, substantially pulling its weight.
However, other big countries consistently lag. It is terrible to say it, but the worst offender is one of the richest countries per capita on earth—Germany. We should not beat about the bush on this: shame on Germany for not pulling its weight in the NATO framework. I understand the country looks with concern over its shoulder at the past and is deeply concerned about possible incipient militarism and all the rest, but I only hope that when we get a new Chancellor in Germany, he or she will at long last persuade its people and their attitudes to mature out of these inhibitions based on the past and fully take on their responsibilities in the future. Should Germany spend more, I appreciate that it would take some years of transition before it fully develops its equipment, bought with additional money, but the signal this would send to Russia—and also to terrorists and cyberattackers, whom I have not mentioned—would be very powerful indeed. I very much look forward to the time when Germany takes its proper civilising share of defence spending in NATO, playing in future years, as it should, a much bigger role in Europe in this respect.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, 70 years ago the world was emerging afresh from the ashes of the Second World War, a conflict in which Britain and her allies suffered many great losses. Four years after the end of the conflict, it became clear that the free world needed to band together in military unity to fend off future threats. So it was that NATO was founded on 4 April 1949 to create an alliance in support of democracy and humanity—and, especially, to assure mutual protection from the Soviet threat.
At its core, there was no more ardent supporter of NATO than the Labour Government, with Prime Minister Clement Attlee chief among its European champions. He and Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin took on the task of persuading the United States to back the creation of NATO. When I reflect on the task Bevin undertook to persuade the Americans of the value of creating NATO and think about the challenges that the present incumbent of the White House poses to it, I remember the first American President, George Washington, who, some 160 years before NATO was founded, said in the first State of the Union address:
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace”.
I hope that those words will be remembered at the NATO summit in London in December, because they have rung true: NATO has helped secure peace among the world’s great powers and Britain’s security for seven decades.
It is not NATO’s mere existence that allows peace to prosper, but the training, weaponry and tactics that the alliance provides. Ultimately, the alliance matters not without constant training and nations working closely together, as we are in Estonia, Poland and across the Baltic. A military force is strong in conflict only if it has spent time training during peace. I would like to see NATO do far more training. The unexpected will occur, and a force whose training is just adequate will not be capable of either defensive or offensive action.
More widely, the unexpected has already occurred. NATO has internal problems in its relations with Turkey. Turkey’s willingness to purchase the S-400 missile defence system from Russia puts Ankara’s commitment to NATO’s mission in questionable territory. The summit in December will have to address this.
Here at home, as Britain faces an uncertain future, we must keep our defence spending under constant review. Yes, we spend around 2% of GDP on defence, but £l billion of that includes pensions for civil servants and others. This may be allowed under NATO rules, but we all recognise that it is wrong to count the payment of pensions as defence spending.
The last NATO summit ended badly, with disagreements on defence spending at the heart of the problem. Britain is hosting the December NATO summit, and we should take the lead and pledge to devote a genuine 2% of our GDP to defence. Moreover, we need a sharp focus on what we spend on. Spending without direction is a waste of both time and resources. My noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen made a remarkable and powerful contribution when we opened this debate. Commenting on the 2% spend on defence some while ago, he stated that,
“the 2% only makes sense if it is spent on the right things—deployable troops, precision weapons, logistics and specialist people”.
My noble friend is so right. He speaks as a former Defence Secretary and Secretary-General of NATO and knows what he is talking about. For my part, I would now add cybersecurity to his list of the right things to spend on. We must make sure that our 2% is spent well, smartly and efficiently to guarantee that NATO maximises its utility.
It is easy to slip into party-political point scoring in debates such as this; I confess that I have done that myself in the past, but today I will resist. These past weeks have shown our country divided enough, without adding more division. I simply say to the Minister that, over 13 years of Labour Government, we recognised the role that NATO played in delivering global stability, helping to safeguard humanity and democracy worldwide. I believe that the Government in which he serves share that view: on that we are united. Labour spent an average of 2.5% of GDP on defence. I do not ask the Minister to commit to that today, but I suspect that he and I would both like to see that level of defence spending now. It is in the best interests of the United Kingdom to increase our defence budget, thus outwardly reaffirming our commitment to the alliance.
In the same vein, one of our strongest allies—previously our most dependable ally—has expressed doubt about the NATO mission. President Trump has made his view of the world, and his lack of understanding, abundantly clear over the past two years. Under Mr Trump, sadly, America is not as reliable as it once was. Whether in a barrage of tweets, rambling speeches or behind closed doors, the President has made his views known. He uses words that make him sound more like a mobster demanding protection money rather than the leader of the free world, and that is greatly troubling.
Across this House, there is a strong belief that NATO is as essential as ever before. We must reaffirm our commitment to it. Although there is no longer a Soviet threat, that is not to say we are without potential adversaries. The growth of Chinese naval power, as shown in increasing numbers of surface vessels and submarines and its attempt to own the South China Sea, is worrying. The instability produced by North Korea and the terrorist threat posed by ISIL—no matter that the caliphate is defeated—remain real.
Then there is Russia. Russia under Putin acts like a gangster state run by gangsters for the benefit of gangsters. The regime has extended its tendrils far across Europe, whether with the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal on British soil, the illegal annexation of Crimea or the meddling in foreign elections, as demonstrated in the 2016 US election and the Brexit campaign. Putin is a gambler, determined to reassert Russian power and influence. Edward Lucas, the distinguished writer, commentator and journalist, called Putin “Russia’s best asset” and added:
“Putin is decisive; we are not. He is willing to break the rules; we are not. He is willing to use force; we are not”.
Putin is never to be underestimated.
We must stand united and be decisive in our unwavering support for NATO. We must be decisive about using force if needed and never falter in NATO’s mission to secure peace. NATO is an indispensable part of Europe’s freedom and the world’s security. On the 70th anniversary of its formation, we should unite with one another and once again affirm our commitment to this essential alliance.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we all say amen to that. How refreshing it is to be debating an international subject and an international organisation in unity and in thankfulness at a time when our country is not, perhaps, distinguishing itself in the eyes of the world for its wonderful diplomacy, fine leadership and national unity.
I was brought up to regard the late Lord Attlee, grandfather of my noble friend sitting here today, and Ernest Bevin as two of the greatest Englishmen, and indeed they were. Without them, we might not have had NATO. Without them, the history of our nation and of the world might have been very different. They recognised danger and—even more important—how essential it was for allies to work together to ensure the safety of their people, individually and collectively, and to ensure that the world, which had within the previous half-century been plunged into the two most devastating wars in history, should not see that again. So of course we have very much to be thankful for. Touching on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, a moment or two ago, one of the things we have most to be thankful for is that the importance of NATO has always commanded the support of British Governments of both major political parties—and, indeed, of the coalition Government of a few years ago.
I agree with those who say that we should recognise in 2019 not only that old dangers have passed but that new ones have arisen. I recognise that there is a great deal of truth in what many colleagues in all parts of the House have said about Russia and about Mr Putin, but I regret infinitely that we have not handled Russia with a little more understanding and care over the last two decades. I regret very much indeed that there is not greater dialogue with and contact with Russia at the moment. In his splendid speech the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, referred to this when he urged more frequent meetings of the NATO-Russia Council. He was right to do so.
The first post of any sort I held in Parliament, way back in 1970 when I came in as a very young man, was as the first chairman of the campaign for the release of Soviet Jewry. We have to remember that in those days it was impossible to practise religious belief with impunity within the boundaries of the Soviet Union and that the only people who had a door marked “exit” were the Jews: they could get an exit visa and could get out of the Soviet Union. I was urged by a friend, a contemporary and colleague in the other place, Greville Janner, to form with him the campaign for the release of Soviet Jewry and we did precisely that. We were declared persona non grata in the Soviet Union. None of our members was allowed to go. We were even forbidden entry to the embassy and merely harangued on the doorstep.
When Mr Gorbachev came to power I was a member of a small international group, based in the Netherlands, that worked to try to bring together parliamentarians within the then Soviet Union and in the West. I was privileged to be present at a number of meetings in Moscow; to hand over a symbolic Bible—a million were being accepted—to Mr Gorbachev’s chef de cabinet; and to take part in Epiphany 1990, I think it was, in a hotel that had always been reserved for leaders of the Soviet bloc, in a Roman Catholic service led by Father Ted Hesburgh, who was Kennedy’s human rights chairman for a time, with Madame Giscard d’Estaing and Rosalynn Carter, wife of the former President of the United States, present. We all took part in this service, and as we looked out of the window we could see the Kremlin. This was an enormous change from the Russia that had forbidden me and fellow colleagues from the other place to enter in the early 1970s. I rejoiced in that; I am sure we all did. I rejoiced as the Berlin Wall was torn down. As someone said earlier, without NATO that probably would not have happened. I rejoiced when Mr Yeltsin leapt on the tank and denounced those mounting a coup against Gorbachev—mercifully, not a successful one.
When Putin came to power, I was one of those at the banquet in the Guildhall on his state visit and one of those who felt glad we were able to welcome him. Things have gone badly awry since then, and it is not all Putin’s fault. We have to remember that he is very popular in Russia and has given back the Russians their self-respect. We have to remember that Russia lives always with the memories of invasion—not just 1812 but 1941. We have to remember that it viewed with real alarm the prospect of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO or the European Union. I understand that; we all do. We also have to understand that we and the Russians have common foes in Islamic terrorism and other subversive forces.
Above all, we have to remember that the second half of this century will be dominated by the mighty power of China, which at the moment is getting closer to Russia. That ought to raise certain fears in our minds. We have to remember that China has already spread its tentacles throughout Africa, and even at the moment there is a wooing going on in Europe, with Italy and Portugal signing up great contracts. I am not suggesting that we should not be on good terms with China, of course, but to be totally suspicious of Russia and not to be suspicious of China is a bit blinkered and one-sided. It is important that we try to get closer cultural and personal relations with Russia. Whatever criticisms of Putin we might have, the Russian people are a great people and we can be very close to them. The world will be a safer place if we are on reasonable terms with Russia, and if we are on good terms with China that is good as well—but China has enormous ambitions. The Secretary of State for Defence, my successor as the Member of Parliament for South Staffordshire, was talking of sending aircraft carriers. I am not sure that is quite the best way of doing things, but I am sure we have to be vigilant and to recognise that a great country with the most ancient surviving civilisation in the world now has world designs—all the more reason for vigilance and for cohesion with our allies.
This 70th anniversary is a notable birthday for what is—as colleagues have said, and I think they are probably right—the most successful alliance in history. Seventy years—one man’s lifespan in biblical terms. Yes, it is right to celebrate it, right to build upon it, but also right to recognise that we should commemorate not a fossil but something that serves a continuing need and purpose. That was made very plain in the speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord West of Spithead, and others. Let us also realise that simplistic notions of the goodies and the baddies are not always the right notions. I hope that over the next decade we can forge a better relationship with Russia, recognising that Mr Putin, who will not be there for ever, has some characteristics which give understandable cause for alarm, and that this emerging giant in the world should give us cause for sober concern.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, on 4 April we will be celebrating the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, so let us remember some of its history. President Eisenhower, its first supreme commander, hoped that NATO would not outlast the 1950s:
“If in ten years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defence purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed”.
He then said:
“We cannot be a modern Rome, guarding the frontiers with our legions”.
This was further reinforced by Paul Hoffman, the US administrator of the Marshall Plan, who said the aim was,
“to get Europe on its feet and off our backs”—
as the noble Lord, Lord West, I think, mentioned earlier. It all began with a treaty and not an alliance. We forget that it was the Korean War that was the trigger to make it into an alliance; in fact, it was Harriman who said that the Korean crisis put the “O” into NATO, turning it from a pact into a military alliance.
Then you have the whole European perspective, the idea of a European Defence Community. That was, as early as 1954, seen as a step too far. Does this not ring true now, when we have all this talk about an EU army? Of course, Lord Ismay, who has been referred to earlier, the first Secretary-General, again stated NATO’s objective as,
“to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.
The 1950s debate on European integration was yes to Europe in terms of the European Community but no to a European Defence Community because that would not work, and that is exactly the debate we are having all these decades later. To this day, I do not think the EU has ever developed a seriously credible foreign or security policy.
Then of course we have the nuclear question, which has been at the heart of NATO as well. In February, Harvard University released a report that noted the failure of European allies to spend more on defence or pull their weight. That is, again, at the heart of this debate. The report goes on to reaffirm the value of collective security:
“On its own, the United States is a powerful nation. But America’s European and Canadian allies expand and amplify American power in ways that Russia and China—with few allies of their own—can never match … The United States is substantially stronger in NATO than it would be on its own”.
That is crucial yet—here is the contradiction—for the first time in NATO’s history, we have an American President who questions all sorts of international partnerships, including NATO. Then we have President Macron and Angela Merkel talking about a European army as a complement to NATO. This is never going to happen. The biggest challenge looking ahead for NATO in its eighth decade is possibly not about keeping the Russians out but keeping the Americans in, as David Reynolds said in a recent article.
For the 29 member countries, NATO’s mission is to,
“safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means”.
On the minimum spending level, the UK is one of five members—arguably, the latest figures show that it is one of seven members—to increase its spending to 2%. I will come to that later. The Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, has said that modern forms of warfare mean that, although the Cold War has finished, for NATO challenges remain. The challenges are Russia, international terrorism and cyberwarfare. Yet Donald Trump has described NATO as obsolete. He has continually criticised members—and rightly so—for not contributing enough to the budget.
I am sure the Minister will confirm that NATO is a cornerstone of our national security. NATO has 20,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq and the Mediterranean and in policing the airspace of eastern Europe following Crimea. Since 2017, there has been a NATO enhanced forward presence operation in the Baltic states surrounding Russia.
As has been referred to, the summit of last year was, quite frankly, a disaster. As one description put it,
“NATO’s European leaders were left reeling after one of the most divisive summits in the organisation’s 69-year history”.
There was a declaration about 2% spending and a response to the ever more unpredictable security environment.
This is why I continually say to our Government that, even if we are experiencing a period of peace, the uncertainty is always there. Things come out of the blue—no one predicted 9/11; it happened without any warning. That is why SDSR 2010 was a disaster, which wrecked our Armed Forces. Fortunately, we are now recovering from that. We are no longer a superpower and we do not have an Empire, but we are very much a global power and being at the heart of NATO gives us that strength to be a global power. It is estimated that the UK provided 12% to 14% of NATO’s total capability in 2017. That is not bad for a country that has just 1% of the world’s population. SDSR 2015, which was far better than SDSR 2010, confirmed that NATO is at the heart of our defence policy and our unconditional commitment to collective defence and security. That is the position we are in today.
On the other hand, the Labour Party has criticised this situation. The shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith said:
“The UK’s ability to play our role on the international stage has been completely undermined by eight years of Tory defence cuts. The Conservatives have slashed the defence budget by over £9bn in real terms since 2010 and they are cutting Armed Forces numbers year after year. Instead of simply engaging in yet more sabre-rattling, Gavin Williamson should get to grips with the crisis in defence funding that is happening on his watch”.
Will the Minister respond to that criticism?
Does the Minister also agree that SDSR 2010 was all about means before ends and we have suffered ever since? It is now a decade since we have had aircraft carrier capability. Our Nimrods were destroyed. We are now getting back our surveillance capabilities. Numbers were cut in all the services, and now that we have to recruit we are struggling to do so. We have shortages in all our services and we possibly need to recruit from Commonwealth countries. It is all very well spending the 2%, but we need to make sure that our Armed Forces are properly resourced.
An important point is that, of the 29 NATO members, 22 are EU members. NATO has said clearly that the EU is a “unique and essential partner”. The two organisations share strategic common interests and values. NATO has co-operated with the EU in its common security and defence policy; the EU’s Operation Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina is commanded by the NATO deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and NATO operations in the Mediterranean are conducted in collaboration with the EU’s Mediterranean anti-people smuggling mission Operation Sophia.
Lord Judd (Lab)
As usual, the noble Lord is making an interesting and challenging speech, to which I relate in many respects. Perhaps he could underline the point he made about the immediate situation, and how important it is to hear from the Minister in his reply, regarding the current doubt as to whether several of our battalions could fight effectively because of the lack of manpower.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and for reinforcing what I have been saying. I hope that the Minister will respond.
Mark Lancaster, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, has said:
“The Government’s objectives will be to underscore the position of NATO at the cornerstone of UK and Euro-Atlantic defence and security, and to support NATO’s continuing adaptation to meet the complicated and evolving threat environment”.
So there is no question that our commitment is there. London was the first seat for the NATO headquarters and a meeting is taking place here in December because of the worry about holding it in America now because of President Trump’s attitudes.
The Second World War led to NATO. Again, we must remember history. Harry Truman—in his Truman doctrine —was to make US foreign policy more interventionist by providing political, military and economic assistance to countries under threat from authoritarian forces, in particular Russia. That doctrine led to what is now NATO and to the treaty’s most important article, Article 5, which is NATO’s commitment to collective defence among its signatories, whereby,
“an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.
It has been invoked only once, and that was after 9/11. What says it all is that the Warsaw Pact did not survive, whereas NATO has not just survived but is expanding—its 29 members will now go up to 30, with Macedonia becoming the 30th member.
The US ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, threatened to cut back on intelligence sharing with some NATO allies if they bought equipment from China’s Huawei Technologies for new 5G telecom networks. The US says the equipment could be used by the Government in Beijing to spy on the West. That is another problem; the threat is from not just Russia but China. America is pushing to stiffen fellow members’ resolve in confronting one of their own, Turkey, which has committed to buying a Russian missile defence system. That situation is tricky, and I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response on how to deal with it. We have also heard from others about Germany only now committing to spending 1.5%—nowhere near the 2% target.
The bottom line is: has NATO worked? I would say, without a doubt, NATO has worked. Russia has never attacked a NATO member. The Crimea and Ukraine attacks have put NATO on guard and we are now there in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania because we feel threatened. Article 5 has never really been put to the test where Russia is concerned.
The NATO Secretary-General is continually trying to play down the differences with America and President Trump. He has said:
“The strength of NATO is that despite these differences we have always been able to unite around our core task … and defend each other”.
Let us not forget that, at the 50th anniversary, Bill Clinton cited Theodore Roosevelt saying that there was no doubt that the US would continue to play a,
“great part in the world … The only question is whether we will play it well or ill”.
So the challenge of America’s commitment and the question for the European countries that dominate NATO is the trans-Atlantic distancing and the decline in post-war military spending that has taken place for a while. It is not just Trump; in 2011, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense in President Obama’s Administration, issued a warning about those who,
“enjoy the benefits of Nato membership … but don’t want to share the risks and the costs … apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets”.
There is an impression that people are not paying their way, and that is absolutely valid.
Finally, looking ahead, there are four challenges for NATO. The first is burden sharing, which I have spoken about; the second is Russia; the third is partnerships; and the fourth is the open door—does NATO keep expanding? It now has 30 members. Are we to continue to have more and more?
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, asked whether our 2% spending is enough and whether it is spent on the right things. My view is that we should spend 3% of our GDP on defence. The suggestion of a European army was one of the biggest scare tactics during the referendum, and it was one that people fell for. People denied that the peace in Europe has existed not just because of NATO but because of NATO and the existence of the European Union. I would pay the £8 billion a year that we pay to the EU just for the peace alone.
As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said in his fabulous speech, NATO must do three things: it must evolve and transform; it must maintain its deterrence; and, most importantly, NATO is about values. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, the secret of NATO’s longevity is not just its military pact but the fact that it is an alliance of shared values, of which we should be proud.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have been involved with the Ministry of Defence since the Falklands War. Celebrating the 70th anniversary of NATO is more than justified. It has proved resilient because it has the strength and confidence that, as has just been said, are the embodiment of shared interests and values. NATO has worked because Europe and North America are strongly united by far more than what divides them. The UK is stronger and more confident because of our membership of NATO. As has already been stated, most military alliances do not last more than 15 years on average, and we should not agonise about or be surprised by pressure points or the occasional twist and turn.
Our Army and the Royal Air Force are key elements in NATO and unquestionably the Royal Navy is the pre-eminent maritime power. Our geography and capability give us a unique advantage to protect Europe’s maritime flank. Our competence at sea is greater than that of any other European nation and our leadership is accepted. The strength of the Royal Navy is not just our strength but NATO’s strength.
We have a responsibility to maintain that pillar of the alliance. That means that our nuclear deterrent is NATO’s nuclear deterrent and that our strike carriers and Royal Marine commandos will always be available, with the ability to strike from sea to land, together with our world-class mine counter capability. Our leadership is welcomed by most European countries. Indeed, I have always believed that, following our withdrawal from the European Union—not Europe, of course—our military capability will be of great importance, particularly for the smaller European countries, as they know that we will always be prepared to protect them in time of need. Sadly, such visionary leadership has been lacking in the withdrawal negotiations over the last three years.
A separate but key point is that we are the prominent trainer of several NATO navies. Because they do not have similar training facilities, this valuable capability leads to enabling interoperability.
As I said earlier, it is an anniversary to be highly celebrated, but now for the future. I am not sure that we would invent NATO today, and I am truly not sure whether at some time in the future it will cease to exist. Crimea was not enough to stir us into action and the French-German overtones suggest a different view of alliances today. You may well ask about the thinking behind the above observations. Relevance in this space is about real deterrence, and that costs. There will be new areas on which to spend money, but ultimate military force is about being the best on all fronts, especially when your adversary only truly respects such capabilities. Of course, we must recognise that we are no longer an empire, but we do have international responsibilities.
I turn now to geography. The clue is in the title “North Atlantic”, so other worldwide activities need other partners such as the USA, Australia and Japan. Most NATO countries have very little global footprint or outlook and so will not necessarily turn up. What then?
Money is key. In this day and age, real leadership requires serious funding. It is time we started to behave like the USA in this regard. For our present and future enlarged role, 2% of GDP is unquestionably too little, and it is essential that we move towards 3%—as has just been suggested—in the very near future. Our future military role is going to be much greater than leading only in the European theatre of NATO. We have a strong moral responsibility to help any Commonwealth country that needs our aid. It is my opinion—shared by many—that at this moment in time we are still heavily hollowed out and certainly lack the necessary firepower to carry out our responsibilities. We should be a key framework nation. That means that others should contribute to the costs.
Many comments have been made about Trump—but I do not agree. In my experience of spending a lot of time with Americans and the American military over the last few months or so, they want this country to be their special ally. They trust us. If anybody truly believes that Trump and the Americans, if there ever was a problem in Europe, would not be there faster than anybody else, they need their brains tested. I will go further: it should be remembered that the Americans consider themselves as being on an island. On one side they have the Pacific and on the other side they have the Atlantic. This has dominated the way in which they have planned over the past couple of hundred years.
On the politics side, NATO is not as joined up and sophisticated as it may appear, as national politics over recent years has had an increasing influence on its decision-making capability. In my personal view—which I think is shared by others—the French seem to wish to undermine NATO to enable them to play a leading role, particularly in Europe and alongside America. Germany, apart from its constitution, is not prepared to increase its financial commitment. For the future, all three services—the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—have still not recovered from the dire cuts of 2010. It has to be said that transformation and innovation have not been actively pursued until very recently.
Kodak—I am very interested in international businesses—was the greatest photographic company in the world until the early 2000s. It knew that it had an urgent need to lead in technology—in the development of smart phones—and to strongly accelerate both transformation and innovation. Nothing happened; it no longer exists. In my view, which is shared by forward-looking minds in all three armed services, it is vital that we rapidly embrace change or we will truly risk irrelevance. We want the finest of our young people—men and women—to be dedicated to the splendid ethos of our armed services, highly trained and equipped with the finest equipment money can buy.
Our strongest likely adversaries—I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that China is the longer-term danger—are arming themselves in all areas of conventional warfare, including cyber, satellite and the capability of economic hacking. This is of great concern. Can we catch up? With the right leadership and financial firepower, unquestionably yes. I personally believe that the Secretary of State, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the newly appointed chiefs of all of our armed services are demonstrating that transformation and innovation are taking place as we speak, and at a rapid rate of knots.
In this modern world of ours, lethal—I repeat, lethal—military force is the best deterrent to aid political negotiation. We are very fortunate that my noble friend Lord Howe is leading this debate. He is one of the best versed in this subject in the House. I would like to reiterate the comments of my friend the noble Lord, Lord West, and of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that holding this debate, in this House, is essential in these dangerous times. When I heard of the timing, within five working days, I tried my best to get the debate delayed to a more suitable date, but I did not succeed. But I say to my noble friend the Minister that we should have a full-blooded defence debate at an appropriate time—in government time—in the early autumn. So much will have happened by then that a full debate will be justified, and those who could not be here today will be able to attend.
The Minister knows me well. I will never lose an opportunity to say that, given the unquestionable economic strength of this country, the Government must strongly increase their support for the key role of government: the defence of the realm.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Touhig, who made a particularly powerful speech today, I reflect it was Attlee and Bevin who, on behalf of Britain, played a crucial part in the creation of NATO. I am glad that, in Britain, there has been for a long time a broadly bipartisan approach to defence. While it was Attlee and Bevin who played a critical part, it was Churchill, in his characteristic way, who woke people up to the Iron Curtain descending across Europe.
I grew up in a politically and internationally active family. I was surrounded all the time by talk about current affairs. My parents were among those who, in the 1930s, had become deeply concerned about the rise of Hitler and Nazism, and were passionately committed to the concept of collective defence. In 1947, after the Second World War, they went to a conference in Prague about the UN. I was 12 at the time, but I remember their return and how deeply concerned and worried they were about what was threatening the future of Europe. My father had known Jan Masaryk a little. When Masaryk fell from that building, it did not really matter to them whether he committed suicide or whether he was pushed. What mattered was the significance, in personal terms and in political terms, of what had happened. There was a funereal and deeply disturbed atmosphere at home.
We must look forward and we must be prepared. That is where I want to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack; somebody with whom I normally find myself in agreement. Of course we should have deep friendship for the Russian people, and we must never forget what they suffered in the Second World War. However, I urge the noble Lord to balance his remarks, at least a little. We cannot overlook the realities of the newly emergent Russia under Putin.
Consider Ukraine and Crimea. For several years, I was a rapporteur to the Council of Europe on the conflict in Chechnya. I was one of the first politicians from outside the region to visit Grozny after that terrible bombardment at the end of the 1990s. I shall never forget that experience. It was as though the town had been nuked: the whole prospect was of shells of buildings, with just a few people crawling around in the rubble trying to make a future of it. The ruthlessness of the Russians in Chechnya was sickening. It was also politically daft, because it was totally counterproductive. There were different people in Chechnya; there were indeed ideological extremists, but there were very large numbers of people who just wanted their dignity and independence. The way the Russians handled themselves under Putin’s leadership drove people towards the extremists. I always regretted that the Labour Government of the time, and others since, never took seriously enough what the Russians were doing to that part of the world, and the consequences for world security as the radicalised people moved out as fighters across the world.
We also have to think of the assassination of journalists and the repression of opposition. We have to think of the town of Salisbury, here in our midst, and of London. This was not just a ruthless, cruel attempted assassination, but a trail of radioactive substances across our country and capital, putting our own people at risk. We are not dealing with a comfortable third nation when dealing with Russia under Putin. We have to be resolute and strong in facing up to that and to the dangers inherent in the situation. As I grew up in an internationally involved family, I inevitably brought that perspective to all I found myself doing. We must remember Hungary in the 1950s, and Czechoslovakia in the 1960s.
When we still had Service Ministers, I was privileged to be Minister for the Navy. I once had an interesting conversation with the head of naval intelligence; I liked him, and he came regularly to brief me. One day, he came in with a copy of Pravda, and said, “Minister, I thought you would like to see this”. Its centre pages were devoted to “Cold War Warrior Judd”. What had incensed the chief of the Russian Navy was that I was talking about the rate at which the Russians were launching submarines. I hope my noble friend Lord Cormack will remember that, in the new Russia, under its present leadership, we have people who were very much involved in that age.
To go back to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, we made one big strategic mistake in foreign policy. At the time when Soviet communism was collapsing and Gorbachev was trying to grapple with the situation, we should have thought then about a European security pact. Things might have been very different if we had moved in to support the reasonable people in Russia at that time in how they were going to move from being a totalitarian state to a live, democratic society with human rights. It was not going to happen automatically; it needed a tremendous amount of imagination and thought.
A debate of this kind can turn into a nostalgic experience. What matters is this great organisation NATO, which, when I was in the services and certainly later in life when I was a Defence Minister, was absolutely taken for granted. We were part of it and everything we were doing was in that context. We can turn this into a debate about the past, but what matters, as several noble Lords have said, is the future, and the challenges that lie ahead: how will NATO be relevant and play the part that it should?
One of those challenges is of course global terrorism. That reality plays into our own society and the insecurity within Britain itself. How we handle that without actually destroying a society that is worth protecting is a tremendous challenge to political leadership and vision: how do we get the balance right? Another challenge is Russia—I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned it—and China. These are the challenges, and NATO will prove itself by how it responds. I must say, to have a former Secretary-General of NATO—of whom I have always been an admirer—in our midst and participating in this debate is really rather telling.
I want to finish on this: I do not find myself convinced by the percentage argument. I remember that, when I was a Foreign Office Minister, the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, had been participating in a big Cabinet debate about percentages. We had not been fulfilling the percentage that had been targeted, and he and others in Cabinet had won a commitment that we were going to meet those targets. He came to me and said, “Frank, we won”. Then he looked at me and said, “Frank, you do not look terribly excited, but you are rather sound on defence. Why?” I said, “Because I can think immediately of all the people who will relax and say, ‘Ah, the pressure is off’”. I thought of the extravagances that would continue—and there were extravagances in the services—and the absence of the pressure to make sure we were prioritising what we needed to do and getting on with it. We have to spend a sufficient amount, or else we waste all the resources we spend by having an inefficient, ineffective defence structure. The first issue is to establish the challenge, what the task is, and to fire people with why we must commit to it—this is particularly vital in a democracy. Then we have to spend what is necessary to meet that challenge.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for so skilfully introducing today’s debate. He has painted a rosy picture, and in many respects, he is entitled to, because there is a good story to be told. As noble Lords have observed, the UK has a record to be proud of, and I am sure we will continue to be a stalwart supporter of NATO. I agree with everything that my noble friend has said—in particular, his assertion that the importance of NATO is increasing. The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, touched on the risk of war. He contrasted our naval military situation at the end of the Cold War with our parlous situation now. Being ill prepared for the unexpected—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to dogs that bark in the night—is a sure recipe for being confronted by unexpected conflict. I have said before that at some point, we will get our posterior kicked hard. If the noble Lord, Lord West, cannot succeed in getting the British public to understand that point, I have no chance.
I have some humble, direct experience of NATO. In the halcyon days of winter 1997-98, when the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was Secretary of State for Defence, I was serving with Sixth Battalion, REME, on Operation Lodestar with SFOR. I can assure the House that my role was very junior indeed—however, it shows that we in this House have experience at all levels. During that operation from time to time, I would travel down from Šipovo to Split. Noble Lords should not underestimate how much pleasure it gave all of us to see yet another house with its roof back on each time we went along the main supply route. It was the security and stability that NATO provided that made this possible.
Not everything in the NATO garden is rosy. In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, suggested three or four reasons why NATO has endured. I would suggest another: economics. Each NATO state would have to expend far more on defence than now, only to achieve less in terms of deterrent and security.
I think we all agree that Trump has a valid point about some members not paying their club fees. The most obvious candidate for criticism in this respect is Germany, and I was grateful for the comments made by my noble friend the Minister on that point. Sadly, it is not Germany’s only disappointing policy; she has carefully surrounded herself with what many term as Article 5 buffer states, then gaily signs up to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which will leave other vulnerable countries horribly exposed to interruptions in energy supplies.
Like my noble friend Lord Patten, I am bound to say that Turkey is also a cause of concern on a number of fronts. I hope that we can succeed in keeping that country on the course of democracy. In this context, I remind the House of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, regarding the need for a free press. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned the air defence problems.
Some noble Lords have touched on Brexit in the context of NATO and I am sure that they are right to do so. However, while the EU will never have anything like the role of NATO, not least because it does not include the United States, it should not be underestimated how much work NATO does by means of its standardisation agreements—STANAGs. There are about 1,300 STANAGs in existence. When I was running an NGO in Rwanda in 1995, we conducted a joint logistic operation with the Canadian component of UNAMIR. One of my team asked me for a relevant telephone number and without looking up, I replied: “Last page of the operation order, look under the heading ‘Command and Signal’”. My team was very surprised at my understanding of the Canadian staff work until I explained that this was a standard NATO orders format—in other words, a STANAG.
The point is that you can have a military operation under EU political direction and control, but it will nevertheless be run under NATO technical standards and NATO standard operating procedures. There is nothing else, and it would be pointless to develop anything else when we have the NATO procedures. So I cannot see why, post Brexit, we could not contribute to an EU military operation if it was in the UK’s wider interests and if we had a say in developing the policy. I do not see that as much of a change because there never was an absolute obligation on the UK to contribute to any EU operation. It would be very odd if, in the event of a European crisis in which the US did not want to get involved, the EU did not involve or consult the UK. It is also hard to think of a potential EU military operation where the UK would not be able to provide some crucial capability, be it in carrier strike, nuclear submarines, combat air power or strategic airlift—I could go on.
Many noble Lords have touched on how we should handle Russia. I agree that we could have handled Russia better during the post-Cold War era, while we ought to understand that the map of the world in the Kremlin is very different to the map that we look at. Nevertheless, I heartily agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, about the characteristics of President Putin: he is leading his country to ruin by wasting its meagre economic resources on strategic adventures.
My noble friend the Minister will once again skilfully and convincingly trot out the statistics to show that we are doing very well in terms of defence effort and that a good measure is the percentage of GDP spent on defence. Of course, the weakness there is that it is not adjusted for the lower cost of running defence in a country such as India or China. However, the key point is that the fact that we are doing much better than most of our EU partners does not prove that we are doing anything like enough to meet or deter the threat.
What should we do? I make no apology for banging on about my next point, which builds on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. If we cannot increase our defence capability, we should test and demonstrate that the capability we think we have really works. We can do that by means of medium- or even large-scale overseas deployment exercises. Yes, it would be expensive, but we would get a much greater effect than expenditure on a small increase in capability. In a crisis, our friends, allies and opponents would be in no doubt of our capability. On the other hand, if we have limited and untested capability, we surely have much less international clout and are less valuable to NATO.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted from these Liberal Democrat Benches to join the bipartisan support for NATO that has been expressed this afternoon. As other noble Lords have pointed out, NATO has enjoyed cross-party support for decades. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem sends his apologies. He is a member of the bureau of the parliamentary assembly of NATO, and is therefore currently in Washington DC at the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of NATO. He would have spoken in this debate, and begs your Lordships’ understanding of why he is not here.
It is perhaps timely to mention something that I would not normally do. I looked down the list of speakers and noted that not only am I the only Liberal Democrat speaking, I am the only woman Peer. I find it somewhat surprising that, while when NATO was created 70 years ago all the founding fathers were male, there has been so little interest among women Peers in participating today. That is markedly at odds with yesterday’s debate about Yemen, when so much of the discussion was led by women Peers, and people commented on the fact that women and children were the most vulnerable people in Yemen.
Although we have talked about NATO in quite abstract terms, a crucial thing to remember is the importance of the peace that has been secured. It matters not only to policymakers and politicians but to ordinary citizens, who for many generations have not had to think about this country going to war. Certainly, my father and his generation felt the importance of the ending of military service: he did not have to go through it, and peace seemed to have been secured. I suggest that that was secured through the twin tracks of NATO and the European Union.
It is a pleasure to participate in a debate where there is, in many ways, so much agreement. The disagreements have been on points of detail rather than substance, and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth pointed out, this is an ideal opportunity to celebrate, because peace on our continent is so important: it should be valued and never taken complacently. I will come back to that point at the end.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, NATO is the most successful alliance in history. The noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead, Lord Judd and Lord Touhig, reminded us of the vital role of the United Kingdom in setting up this alliance—again, in marked contrast to the European project, where the United Kingdom always sat somewhat on the sidelines. With NATO we were at the forefront, urging its creation, very much led by a Labour Government, with Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin playing key roles. It is hugely important that the Labour Benches, as well as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, take the defence of our realm seriously. It is clear that the Labour Benches in this House take defence seriously, as does the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that the Leader of the Official Opposition also takes defence seriously.
The American dimension has always been crucial to NATO, even if it was the United Kingdom that had to persuade the Americans in the first place. During the Cold War, Josef Joffe referred to NATO as “Europe’s American pacifier”. As several noble Lords have said, Lord Ismay’s point about keeping the Americans in Europe was crucial. However, over decades we have heard that the Europeans do not contribute enough; they do not pay enough or pull their weight. It is very easy in 2019 to think that the criticisms are unusual, and that Donald Trump’s insistence that the Europeans need to stand up and be counted and double their expenditure comes from him because he is a bit of a maverick. But this is not the exception; it is what we have heard from American leaders at least since the late 1960s. In many ways there is a sense of déjà vu; essentially, the Europeans have been seen to be free-riding on American security.
In his article of 1994, Josef Joffe argued that, in the post-Vietnam world, liberals—an odd word in an American context—and the new right had begun to come together and,
“have unintentionally joined hands in a new-found resentment of Western Europe. Both believe that West European countries long ago acquired the resources to defend themselves. Both resent the West Europeans’ security parasitism”.
So Donald Trump is not entirely new in thinking that the Europeans do not step up to the plate.
During the Cold War, the idea of the United States leaving the continent of Europe was, of course, unthinkable. So every time the Americans said, “Please step up to the plate”, the Europeans said, “We will, as long as we can endeavour to have our own European security identity and autonomy”. That always drew the reaction of, “No, no, that’s not what we meant. We want you to pay more but we don’t want you to be autonomous”. On each occasion during the Cold War, it was clear that the American pacifier would remain.
With the end of the Cold War, the future of NATO and America’s ongoing presence in Europe looked to change. There was an expectation that there needed to be a fundamental reappraisal of the alliance. Yet that never fundamentally happened, so in 2019 we have a NATO that is still dominated by European member states, most of which do not yet pay their 2% of GDP towards defence expenditure.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I think we need to be a little bit careful about using percentages when thinking about defence expenditure. The Liberal Democrats, like the other parties, have committed to the NATO commitment of 2%. Yet we need to think about what is being spent. The House has already heard that some of the 2% goes on pensions, not just for military veterans but for retired civil servants as well. Should that really be part of the 2%? There is a question about what the 2% is formally allowed to be spent on, under the NATO rules, but we also need to think about what goes into it and look at procurement. We need to think about whether the 2% should be focused more on current commitments and less on pensions and about what our procurement procedures look like. Are they fit for purpose? Is Her Majesty’s Government getting value for money? I have asked the Minister this on various occasions, but I might just ask him again. Is our 2% well spent? We are delighted that it is being spent, but is it being spent correctly? As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked, what are we procuring for; what provisions are we making?
As other noble Lords asked, how far are we looking towards cyber as part of our NATO commitment? We clearly already have offensive cyber, but how far is that in our thinking? If, as the Prime Minister has suggested, the United Kingdom wants to play a leading role in NATO, how far are we going to lead on cyber? Do the Government already have an agenda for the leaders’ meeting that will take place in this country in December? It is all very well to say that the UK wants to play a leading role, but for decades we said the same about the European Union, and that never happened. Our record on NATO is much stronger, but there is nevertheless always the danger that rhetoric will not be met by reality.
NATO has clearly been a success. It is a community of values—democracy, human rights and the rule of law—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, made clear. And yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, pointed out, there are question marks over some of its members. He identified Turkey, but there are also EU member states whose approach to human rights, press freedom, the rule of law and the role of judges might come into question. If we are, as Jens Stoltenberg put it, an “alliance of friends”, are we critical friends? Can we be critical friends? Are we doing enough to make sure that our alliance of 29 is working in the same direction? Can we persuade Turkey to look elsewhere when procuring equipment?
Finally, I fully concur with the Minister’s comment that it is vital to educate those who do not even remember the Cold War, far less the Second World War, who do not appreciate that peace cannot be taken for granted and who might be tempted to think that NATO does not matter. It is a source of great regret to me that those of us who are passionate advocates of European integration failed over the years to make people understand the importance of the integration process as a peace project. It would be catastrophic if, as a country, we became complacent about the peace that has been brought about by NATO. It is vital that we keep talking about NATO, that we keep contributing to it and that we make sure that future generations benefit from it as we all have done.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this debate and the many noble Lords who have participated in it. It has been wide-ranging, and it is therefore inevitable I will repeat some points.
I am honoured to take part in today’s debate on the 70th anniversary of the founding of NATO. Over the past 500 years, the average lifespan of a collective defence alliance has been 15 years. That is why NATO’s anniversary is so impressive, and why it has been described as one of the most successful defence treaties in history. Against the backdrop of the ongoing Brexit chaos, the alliance remains the cornerstone of the UK’s defence policy and our collective security, and will become even more important as we leave the European Union and face new threats in the years to come.
For the Labour Party, NATO’s 70th anniversary is an extra special celebration. It was the leadership of Clement Attlee, and his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, that was so instrumental in setting up the alliance in 1949. When Bevin moved the Motion in the other place to approve the North Atlantic Treaty which established NATO, he called it,
“one of the greatest steps for peace”.
He went on:
“In co-operation with like-minded peoples, we shall act as custodians of peace and as determined opponents of aggression, and shall combine our great resources and great scientific and organisational ability, and use them to raise the standard of life for the masses of the people all over the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/1949; col. 2022.]
Bevin stressed that the purpose of this pact was to act as a deterrent. It sent a message to potential adversaries that NATO’s members were not,
“a number of weak, divided nations”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/1949; col. 2017.]
but a united front, bound together in the common cause of collective self-defence. To this day, this common cause is sought through peaceful settlement and collective responsibility for action. Article 1 strongly articulates the need for peaceful resolution to disputes, while Article 5 underlines how an armed attack against one,
“shall be considered an attack against them all”.
Today, the original 12 NATO members have grown to 29. Along with its central role of ensuring the security of the North Atlantic area, NATO also supports global security by working with partners across the world. In non-combat missions in Afghanistan it provides advice and training to security forces, while Operation Active Endeavour seeks to deter terrorist activity in the Mediterranean. More than 800 members of the UK Armed Forces are also stationed in the Baltic states as part of a NATO mission to reassure allies and deter aggressors.
NATO allies are committed to spending a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence, and it is right that we encourage all allies to meet the NATO guidelines, as the 2014 Wales summit communiqué made clear. However, the UK is barely scraping over the line when it comes to its own level of defence spending. In recent years, the UK’s defence expenditure to NATO has included several items that had not been included previously, such as the addition of pensions to the 2% target; Labour did not include them when we were in government.
We must recognise that years of government cuts have severely affected the UK’s military capability. Recruitment across the board is in free fall, with some front-line British Army battalions down by one-third. The 1st Battalion Scots Guards is 34% below its workforce requirement, while the 2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment is 31% below its target strength. This is unsurprising since the National Audit Office found in December that Capita, which has managed recruitment for the Armed Forces since 2012, has consistently missed Army targets, with a shortfall ranging from 21% to 45% each year. The Government’s decision to outsource recruitment to the company has been a total failure. Morale across the Armed Forces has also declined during the past decade, dropping from 66% to 51% for Royal Marines officers, and the Ministry of Defence has said that its equipment plan faces an affordability gap of between £7 billion and £15 billion.
It is impossible to suggest that this lack of investment and care for our forces, as well as uncertainty about spending commitments, does not undermine the UK’s role in NATO. How can the UK be a key player in the alliance if questions about the long-term commitment to defence spending remain? If recruitment and morale are failing, and if the Ministry of Defence simply cannot afford the equipment it needs, I urge the Government to address these issues immediately.
As we look forward to the next 70 years for NATO, it is clear that it will need to adapt to new resurgent threats. Despite, at times, the isolationist and unpredictable actions of the US, the relationship between America and Europe remains incredibly important. It constitutes £3 billion a day in trade, and our countries share deep interests and values—especially a fundamental belief in democracy. This relationship provided vital protection for citizens in the face of the actions of the Soviet Union. It will continue to be important in the face of resurgent threats from Russia. In the last few years, Russia’s aggressive stance has repeatedly attacked our rule-based international system with abhorrent disregard and self-interest. This was shown through its disgraceful and illegal annexation of Crimea and Donbass in 2014, and in the reckless poisonings in Salisbury last year. These actions have led to a renewed focus on the immediate security of the alliance and the need to secure NATO’s eastern border.
In government, Labour would engage with NATO to see how it could maximise security and dialogue inside and outside the alliance area, as well as using membership to promote democracy and human rights. We would also want to examine how NATO and the UN could interact and operate together more effectively on conflict prevention and peace operations.
Technology is also opening up whole new dimensions for warfare. Cyber remains a huge task for the alliance, but it has taken some welcome steps. At the Brussels summit in 2018 the allies agreed to set up a new cyberspace operations centre, and cyberattack can now trigger an Article 5 response. As NATO also strengthens its co-operation with the EU on cyberdefence, it represents a key area where the UK must continue to co-ordinate action with our European partners after Brexit. We must not allow the UK leaving the EU to limit our security and defence co-operation with important allies, especially when it is in our interest.
AI will also be at the heart of most future cutting-edge technologies, in both the military and civilian worlds. Machine learning will enable new modes of warfare, including various forms of autonomous and semi-autonomous weaponry. The country that invests earliest and most aggressively may end up in a position of military supremacy. Camille Grand, NATO’s assistant secretary-general for defence investment, said that he viewed artificial intelligence in the broad context of new and disruptive technologies, adding:
“Nobody has fully assessed how much it’s going to change the way we do military operations. Is AI going to be a tool to assist in decisions, or is AI going to allow for more autonomous systems to operate?”
To answer these questions we must explore how NATO and the UN can work together to develop an international governance framework to provide oversight of the use of AI by the military, especially the ethical and moral implications of autonomous weapons. The stronger the position we take now, the more likely that AI will be used as a global public good.
On its 70th anniversary, NATO’s success is undisputed. Having seen it secure seven decades of peace and stability, Labour will ensure that it remains the cornerstone of the UK’s defence policy in the years to come, as it adapts to maximise security, pursue dialogue and promote human rights as warfare changes far beyond Attlee and Bevin’s comprehension.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a fascinating, wide-ranging and constructive debate, and I have been very firmly struck by the support which our great NATO alliance commands in your Lordships’ House in its 70th year. I feel sure I will not be alone in finding that enormous and enduring fund of good will both heartening and reassuring. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for sharing their knowledge and experience of defence and security policy, and of NATO in particular. In expressing support for the alliance, it is perhaps unsurprising that a number of contributors chose to home in on the theme of resources and defence spending among NATO allies. The noble Lords, Lord Robertson and Lord West, spoke of the need for allies to channel those budgets wisely to deliver effective military capability.
Allies have committed to spend 2% of GDP on defence by 2024: that commitment was repeated at last July’s NATO summit. The UK has made it clear that the 2% commitment should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling, but equally I do not believe we should fixate on percentages. As the noble Lords, Lord Robertson and Lord Judd, said, it is about looking at what the threats are and then at how we have the capabilities to deal with them, making sure that those capabilities are properly financed and supported. I understand the call from my noble friend Lord Sterling that we in this country should spend more on defence. In the UK, we spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defence; we also meet the target of spending 20% of our defence budget on new equipment and associated R&D. We are forecast to increase the proportion of our GDP spent on defence in 2018-19 and 2019-20, after the October 2018 Budget announcement. We should appreciate that the resultant figure will remain considerably above the 2% benchmark.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, criticised some of the areas of spending we count under the defence heading. I am sure she will know, but will not mind my repeating, that it is NATO that determines the definitions for categorising defence spending, not the UK. Like other NATO allies, the UK regularly updates its approach to ensure it is categorising defence spending fully in accordance with the NATO guidelines. We did this during the SDSR following machinery-of-government changes, as well as to reflect the changing nature of defence spending over time.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Patten, among other speakers, emphasised the importance of fairer burden sharing between allies. We can reasonably argue that this is a case of a glass nearly half full. Allies are making significant progress on burden sharing. The Secretary-General has calculated that non-US allies will spend an additional $100 billion between 2016 and 2020, increasing to over $350 billion by 2024, and eight allies will be spending 2% this year. We welcome the growing number of allies that have made commitments to meeting the 2% target by 2024, but there is more to be done. We cannot ignore the fact that some allies are spending less than 1.5% of GDP on defence, and three of these are spending less than 1%. I assure the House that we will continue to work with allies to ensure that defence investment is prioritised and sustained.
This is not, however, spending for the sake of spending. It must be considered with the other aspects of alliance burden sharing. That includes cash; capabilities, or what capabilities allies assign to the alliance; and commitments, in other words the NATO operations and missions that allies contribute to. That is why the pledge also includes agreement that:
“Increased investments should be directed towards meeting”,
NATO “capability priorities”, and that allies should,
“display the political will to provide required capabilities and … forces when they are needed”.
The noble Lord, Lord West, referred to the need to maintain complementarity between NATO and the EU in a defence context, a theme echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. The UK’s vision is of every European nation stepping up to modern security challenges, taking responsibility, sharing the burden and investing in our shared security. We must have a united, modernised and fully resourced NATO, able to fulfil its crucial collective defence role and taking a comprehensive approach to Euro-Atlantic defence and security. We need deep security and defence partnerships between like-minded and capable nations, strengthening co-ordination and interoperability and underpinning our work in multilateral organisations. We also need a globally competitive and outward-facing European defence industrial and technological base, driving innovation and delivering the capabilities that Europe needs for its security.
There is frequent discussion on the theme of EU strategic autonomy. We agree that Europe needs to do more to improve its own security and that the EU can play a valuable supporting role, whether using its political weight and economic levers or supporting member states in countering hybrid tactics, building resilience and developing vital defence capabilities and interoperability.
Lord West of Spithead
Does the Minister not think there are real dangers in the route the EU is going down, with PESCO, the European Defence Fund and the fact that, in our negotiations with it, on a couple of occasions now we have been stonewalled when it comes to UK industry being involved in things—and one can think separately of Galileo? Is it doing the best for the defence of us all in a European or NATO context?
Earl Howe
I very much agree. We find the concept of EU or European strategic autonomy problematic if, as it appears to be, it drives an EU-exclusive or enclosed, institutionalised approach to security and defence that shuts out key strategic partners and could duplicate or undermine NATO. We see that exclusive approach prevailing in EU defence initiatives such as the European Defence Fund and PESCO, which otherwise have the potential to boost, in a coherent way, much-needed investment and support to capability development. That is exactly why we will continue to argue in favour of an open and flexible approach, to ensure that European security benefits from the capabilities and resources that the EU’s closest strategic partners can bring to bear.
My noble friend Lord Patten and the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Touhig, all spoke powerfully and with authority about Russia, undoubtedly NATO’s most significant long-term challenge. I listened with great respect too to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on this topic. The November incident in the Black Sea has shown vividly how serious the Russia challenge has become and how robust we must be in response. Noble Lords will be well aware that NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia, but recent Russian actions, including the Black Sea incident, have confirmed that NATO’s dual-track approach to Russia, of strengthened deterrence and defence backed up by hard-headed dialogue, is justified. We reaffirmed this approach at the Brussels summit last July, and will do so again at the foreign ministerial meeting in Washington this month.
As my noble friend said, Russia will continue to look for different ways to test NATO and its allies and partners. In both words and deeds, we need to be prepared to respond, and that is why NATO is already adapting its political and military posture. We are committed to driving forward efforts to modernise NATO, as I mentioned in my opening speech, enabling the alliance to respond to the threats it faces more effectively and with more agility. To test that agility and to enhance our contribution, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Attlee will have observed, the UK deployed some 3,300 personnel, as well as ships and planes, to Norway for NATO’s biggest exercise in 2018; exercise Trident Juncture had some 50,000 troops from 31 NATO and partner nations. This delivered undoubtedly a strong signal that allies can operate at an impressive scale and move across Europe in the event of a crisis. Again, my noble friend will be interested to know that, in spring and summer this year, we will demonstrate a robust posture in the Baltic region by our participation in the US-led BALTOPS exercise, Baltic Protector and a range of other military activities. We have also deployed 800 Royal Marines to Norway in 2019 to take part in cold-weather training. In March last year, a Royal Navy submarine took part in ICEX with the US Navy for the first time in 10 years, and the Navy will mount regular under-ice deployments in the years to come. There is much else that we are doing to up the tempo of our activity as a proportionate response to an assertive Russian posture.
We are also constantly looking at how we can build other structures that complement NATO as the bedrock of our defence. Last June, the Defence Secretary signed the comprehensive memorandum of understanding establishing the joint expeditionary force with our eight partners in that agreement. This year, the JEF signature activity will be the Baltic protector deployment, a large-scale maritime and amphibious exercise in the Baltic Sea, as I mentioned, between May and July 2019.
My noble friend Lord Cormack spoke with his customary sincerity about the need to ensure that we improve relations with Russia. On dialogue, NATO should continue to engage with Russia when it is appropriate and in our interests to do so, so that we can clearly communicate our positions. Periodic focused and meaningful dialogue through the NATO-Russia Council provides a means to avoid misunderstanding, miscalculation and unintended escalation, and to increase transparency and predictability.
In addition, to the NATO-Russia Council, we continue to use other fora, such as the OSCE and direct mil-mil links, to mitigate the risk of escalation and to voice concerns over Russian behaviour, including its failure to uphold treaty obligations. However, I have to tell my noble friend that, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded us, there can be no return to business as usual until there is clear, constructive change in Russia’s actions that demonstrate compliance with international law and its international obligations.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned China. It is instructive to remind ourselves of the words of the NATO Secretary-General in February this year:
“NATO and China have already worked together to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. And our militaries are in regular contact. But China’s rise also presents a challenge. One example is of course the concern many Allies have expressed about China’s increasing investment in critical infrastructure, such as 5G. We have to better understand the size and the scale of China’s influence, what it means for our security. And we have to address it together”.
I would add that from the UK’s perspective China is an important economic partner. We do not expect to agree with the Chinese Government on everything, but we strongly support China’s greater integration into more of the world’s key institutions and organisations as its global role and responsibilities grow. We are committed to our relationship with China, which enables both countries to benefit and also allows us to be frank with one another on areas where we disagree.
The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Bilimoria, spoke of the current difficulties in the relationship between the United States and Turkey. We have repeatedly raised our concerns at ministerial and official level about the proposed Turkish purchase of S-400 missiles. Turkey is a valued NATO ally on the front line of some of the UK’s and the alliance’s most difficult security challenges, and we readily acknowledge that defence equipment procurement decisions are for individual nations. However, all NATO allies have committed to reducing their dependence on Russian-sourced legacy military equipment, and we believe that the proposed purchase would pose real challenges for the interoperability of NATO systems.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, spoke of the importance of ensuring that United States leadership in NATO is maintained and encouraged, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, expressed similar views. It is true to say that the White House in recent years has sometime proved unpredictable in its pronouncements, but my noble friend Lord Sterling was quite correct: President Trump has been clear about his commitment to NATO and Article 5. At January’s US missile defence review launch he confirmed that he was 100% behind the alliance. Those are not just words. We should recall that the United States continues to invest heavily in European security, spending $6.5 billion on the European defence initiative in 2018-19. The US also provides a huge proportion of NATO collective defence capabilities, including some which are unique to the alliance, such as strategic bombers, full-spectrum naval forces and strategic intelligence. Thanks to the EDI budget, there were in 2018 approximately 6,850 US troops in Eucom, and EDI is only one of a range of different pots available to fund approximately 80,000 US troops in Europe. Since 2015, there has been more than a sixfold increase in funding available through the EDI.
I was prepared to say a little bit about cyberdefence. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about that as I am reminded that time is short.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
I know that the noble Earl will come to my somewhat critical comments about the lack of information on NATO from the Government, especially to parliamentarians, but I exempt him from some of that criticism because he is a shining example of what Ministers should be doing, given his early morning briefings of all-party groups of MPs. I should like to put that on the record but it does not exempt the rest of the Government from a frankly pathetic effort in getting over information about what is happening in terms of British-NATO relations.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments but am sure that no one listening to his speech will have overlooked a powerful point he made about government messaging in general. I had intended not to comment too much on that theme but rather to go away and report back to him on what we can and should do across government to address his powerful points.
I should like to cover the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling on shortcomings in NATO’s internal financial management. NATO bodies have been strengthening the areas of internal control and risk management, as identified by IBAN audits as areas of weakness to address. The Secretary-General has taken the opportunity of the functional review to do the same at the HQ, and the nations agreed the additional resources for him to do so in December 2018. The UK expects an enhanced internal control and risk management team to be established by autumn this year. Unfortunately, there is currently no consensus among allies on the implementation of the IBAN’s financial performance audit recommendations, which makes progress slow. However, I understand that NATO is looking to create a resource executive function—more or less a chief financial officer role—and is due to submit a recommendation on this matter to the North Atlantic Council this summer.
In my opening contribution to this debate, I quoted NATO’s current Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg. I will finish with the words of one of his illustrious predecessors. Dirk Stikker served at a tumultuous time more than half a century ago, with the Cold War at its height and the Cuban missile crisis taking the world to the brink of nuclear confrontation. He was also a great friend to the UK, having previously served many years as Dutch ambassador. Long after he stood down, he reflected in his memoirs on why NATO continues to play so vital a role in world affairs. He concluded:
“However great a nation, it never has all the pieces on the checkerboard. The checkerboard is vast. And the game without end.”
NATO’s achievements over the past 70 years have been remarkable. It has forged its member nations’ individual strengths into an alliance sufficiently formidable to deter all adversaries—those then and now who would impose their own norms of intolerance and authoritarianism on the free world. NATO has made an enormous difference—whether helping to end the Cold War, stopping terror or bringing reassurance to the vulnerable across the globe from Bosnia to Operation Ocean Shield in the Gulf of Aden. Sometimes this has meant conspicuous heroism on the battlefield or in the conflict zone, and sometimes quiet but tenacious work behind the scenes or under the oceans. As the right reverend Prelate so eloquently put it, NATO is not only a military alliance but a community of values—values that endure. Whatever form it has taken, NATO, as my noble friend Lord Attlee witnessed at first hand, has always done its work supremely well. So today we take the opportunity to pay tribute to the alliance and, in particular, we say thank you to all those men and women over the past seven decades who have served NATO with fortitude and honour. We owe them much. We owe them our peace.