House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
We are concerned that covid-19 is disproportionately impacting ethnic minority communities, which is why the Government have put in place measures to reduce the spread of the virus, especially for people who may be at higher risk. In addition to a raft of specific targeted interventions, I am working with the Race Disparity Unit and the Department of Health and Social Care to act on the findings of the Public Health England review into disparities in risks and outcomes of covid-19. That work will enable us to take appropriate, evidence-based action to address the highlighted disparities.
Stephen Morgan
In the light of the latest evidence from the TUC on racism and risk in the workplace, what steps will the Minister take to tackle the entrenched discrimination faced by black, Asian and minority ethnic people at work?
Kemi Badenoch
The Government are doing all they can to address racial disparities across all sectors. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the commission that the Prime Minister has set up, with the commissioners announced last week, which will look at continued disparities across the board, including in the workplace.
Felicity Buchan
My constituency of Kensington has a substantial BAME population. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that her follow-up work on the PHE report will take into account how comorbidities and occupations affect the outcomes of coronavirus?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is completely right. It is important to remember that the PHE review findings did not take into account comorbidities or other factors such as occupations. I agree with her that it is imperative for us to understand the key drivers of these disparities, the relationships between the risk factors and what we can do to close the gap in the evidence that the review highlighted.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The recommendations in the Marmot review and the Marmot review 10 years on would be a good place to start when addressing health inequalities impacting BAME communities. Is 10 years enough time to consider the recommendations of the original review, and how long will it be before we see the recommendations of either implemented?
Kemi Badenoch
I had a meeting with Professor Marmot just last month, and we discussed the recommendations of his review. If my right hon. Friend has seen the report, she will know that many of the recommendations are at a very high level. For instance, the first recommendation says that we should give every child the best start in life. I am sure that that was something she took forward when she was a Minister. This Government believe that it is important, and it is reflected in all our policies across education and communities.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
We are committed to tackling discrimination against transgender people. We have invested £4 million for schools to tackle anti-LGBT bullying, and we have addressed homophobic hate crime in the hate crime action plan.
Nadia Whittome
Successive Conservative Equalities Ministers have repeatedly stalled on publishing the results of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 consultation. Leaked reports of a potential roll-back on trans rights have understandably caused alarm. With hate crimes against trans people up nearly 40% on last year, does the Secretary of State agree that her quibbling on this issue is fanning the flames of populist hate towards an already marginalised group?
Elizabeth Truss
As the Prime Minister said, we will respond to the consultation over the summer. Let me be absolutely clear: we will not be rolling back the rights of transgender people. It is important that transgender people are able to live their lives as they wish, without fear, and we will make sure that that is the case.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) [V]
In July 2018, the Government announced that they were seeking views on how best to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in a consultation that closed in October 2018. Nearly two years later, the Government have still not published their response. Trans rights are human rights, and updating the GRA will help to improve the lives of trans people. Today the House will rise, and the Minister has previously stated that the Government would publish their response. When will she finally publish the Government’s response and their plans for reform?
Elizabeth Truss
As I said, we will respond to the consultation over the summer—the Prime Minister committed to that earlier this week—and I assure the hon. Lady that I am very keen to get on with that response.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins) [V]
We have heard these concerns from the police and charities, and we are working with them to ensure that police forces are reassuring affected communities and encouraging reporting of hate crimes during the pandemic. The Government are clear that there is no place for hate crime in modern Britain. These crimes destabilise our communities and there are no excuses for them.
Sarah Owen [V]
A petition recently created by Viv Yau has nearly 3,000 signatures already. It calls on the UK Government and media outlets to stop using stock imagery of south-east and east Asian people when talking about covid-19. The disproportionate use of images of Chinese, south-east and east Asian people in masks during the pandemic perpetuates the notion that all of us carry the virus, and it plays a significant role in the recent trebling of racist attacks, stereotyping and abuse. Will the Minister commit to working with Government and public bodies on the use of these images, and meet me to discuss the increase in hate crime during the pandemic?
Victoria Atkins [V]
The perpetrators of hate crimes targeting south and east Asian communities, and others, in relation to covid-19 are being punished. We know from the Crown Prosecution Service that it has prosecuted a number of cases involving racist abuse on the basis of perceived Chinese ethnicity. But of course the Government are always willing to work with interested parties to ensure that we are stopping hate crime, and I would happy to meet the hon. Lady to do that.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government have introduced significant measures to help mitigate the financial impact of covid-19. We are committed to providing financial support for people when they need it throughout their lives, including when they are near to or reach retirement. The welfare system will continue to support men and women who are unable to work, on a low income, or under state pension age.
Liz Twist
Research by think-tank the Women’s Budget Group shows that women are at greater risk from the economic crisis caused by the covid-19 pandemic. The current crisis is pushing more and more women, including those born in the 1950s, into poverty. What practical steps will the Minister take to relieve the impact on 1950s-born women, who are already disadvantaged by the rise in the state pension age—and may I, Mr Speaker, declare an interest as a 1950s-born woman?
Mims Davies
The Government recognise the importance of supporting adults to effectively plan for the future. We do recognise that this is a challenging time for everyone, and we aim to support older workers, including women who may be out of work because of covid-19. Through the summer Budget, the Chancellor announced a number of initiatives that will support all claimants, including older women. The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a live Court of Appeal case as of yesterday, and I cannot comment further on this live litigation.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We have supported people to make a claim for universal credit if they have lost their jobs. We are strengthening our youth offer for 18 to 24-year-olds. This includes introducing a tailored 13-week programme, new youth hubs, and DWP specialist youth employability work coaches. Meanwhile, young people can be referred to apprenticeships or work-related training at any stage.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for that answer. However, Glasgow South West constituent Caitlyn Lee, who has worked for the Blythswood Square hotel for five years, will receive only £580 in redundancy pay, which barely covers one month’s rent, because, under statutory redundancy pay law, young workers under the age of 22 are entitled to half a week’s pay whereas workers over 40 get one and a half weeks’ pay. Will the Government address this discrimination, and what will they do to mitigate the mass redundancies of young workers so that they are not disadvantaged any further?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Young people can be at a particular disadvantage, perhaps due to their limited work experience, and they might potentially have a lower skills level. I am concerned to hear about this issue. Our jobcentres are already talking to claimants about the support they can give to young people and signposting them to places that can support them into employment, such as the National Careers Service, in giving advice on how they can look for further work. We have also announced our new kick-start scheme for Great Britain—a £2 billion fund to support young people at risk of long-term unemployment.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
My fantastic god-daughter, Toniann, is 17. During lockdown, instead of studying, or even watching boxsets, she became a key worker and helped to keep the economy going. For that, she was paid £4.55 per hour. Does the Minister think that Toniann and other people her age are worth any more than that, and if so, will she stand up for the young people of these islands and urge the Chancellor to make it compulsory for employers using the kick-start scheme to top up this frankly insulting and free—to them—wage?
Mims Davies
I am passionate about supporting our young people to get the opportunities they need, and for this, the kick-start programme is vital. My officials are engaging with the devolved authorities about how we can make the eligibility criteria attractive and wide-ranging. We are looking at the detail and will set it out so that everyone can understand how to get involved and get these opportunities at the start of August.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The Domestic Abuse Bill still does not include critical measures to protect migrant women and girls, which is a necessity for compliance with the Istanbul convention. How do the Government intend to protect vulnerable women regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation or immigration status if they continue to fail to ratify the convention?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins) [V]
The hon. Lady knows that we already protect the rights of victims of domestic abuse and other survivors through a range of measures, not just those in the Domestic Abuse Bill, but I am delighted that she raises the Bill, which is a groundbreaking piece of legislation. Alongside it, we will this year launch a pilot project to understand and measure the need of migrant women who have no recourse to public funds, because the Government are clear that they must be treated as victims first and foremost.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
The Prime Minister has set out his vision to level up and spread opportunity across the country, and the Equality Hub will play an important part in realising that vision by rigorously analysing where the real inequality in Britain is today. It will focus in particular on areas such as geography and social background.
Jerome Mayhew
Rural poverty is easy to overlook in picturesque areas that other people associate with holidays and a slower pace of life, but it is every bit as hard and destructive for those affected. Can my right hon. Friend advise the House on what action the Government are taking to address rural deprivation?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We want everybody across the country to benefit from our levelling-up agenda of investing more in transport infrastructure and dealing with educational inequality. We recognise that deprived rural areas can face additional barriers to opportunity. The Equality Hub will analyse the data and look at where that inequality of opportunity is, so that Departments can take measures to address them.
James Grundy
How might northern constituencies, such as my constituency of Leigh, which according to some measures is in the top 20% most deprived constituencies in the country, benefit from the plans my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier?
Elizabeth Truss
We want to make sure that no part of our country feels forgotten about, particularly towns and cities in the north and the midlands, such as my hon. Friend’s constituency. I can assure him that we will do everything we can to look at the roots of that geographical inequality and to make sure his constituents have the best opportunities in life.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government are committed to tackling racial disparities and levelling up the country, which is why the Race Disparity Unit continues to work across Departments and their agencies to identify and address adverse variances in outcomes across education, healthcare, criminal justice and the economy. It is also why the Prime Minister announced the new Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, the terms of reference and membership of which were announced last week.
Naz Shah [V]
The Baroness McGregor-Smith review in 2017 found that the economy could be boosted by £24 billion if BAME disparities were eradicated. I am sure the Minister would agree that that boost would be really helpful to the economy right now. Will she tell me explicitly what the Government and her Department are doing directly to tackle structural racism in the workplace?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady references Baroness McGregor-Smith’s review, which was an industry-led review with recommendations that were mostly for the private sector to consider. Following that review, we ran a consultation on ethnicity pay reporting and received more than 300 detailed responses, which we are currently analysing. This is one of the things that the commission will look into: it will look at a broad range of issues and some of the findings will help to address the issues that the hon. Lady has just raised.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government are committed to helping individuals from low-income families to progress at work and to a system to increase their incomes and level up opportunities. The aforementioned baroness, Ruby McGregor-Smith, is leading our DWP in-work progression commission, which is identifying challenges that individuals might face and finding practical solutions to help them to overcome the barriers faced across all communities.
Ben Bradley
Most likely to drop out of school with no qualifications, most likely to commit suicide and already falling behind in terms of attainment compared with all their peers by the age of five—the plight of white working-class boys still seems to be an unfashionable one, but although these young men have some of the worst life chances of any group anywhere in our country, the Equality Act 2010 does not touch on socioeconomic disparity or poverty. It seems like every other group in society, apart from these boys, has some kind of positive action in place. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that this is the last generation of lost boys from places such as Mansfield who do not have the same opportunity in life as their peers?
Mims Davies
The evidence is understood that early language and learning skills have a fundamental impact on a child’s education and future life chances. The Government are bringing in extra support for all disadvantaged children, including white working-class children—I know that my hon. Friend’s sees that as key to no area being left behind. The Department for Education has set up the Hungry Little Minds campaign, targeting low-income parents to support their child’s early language development, which is key to help them to set up for school and boost their life chances.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
I have been clear that the Government are committed to tackling the abhorrent practice of so-called gay-conversion therapy in the UK. As the Prime Minister reiterated earlier this week, this practice has no place in civilised society. Our action will be determined by research looking at how best to define conversion therapy, the scale of the issue, where it is happening and who it is happening to. When that research is complete, I will bring forward proposals to ban conversion therapy, making sure that our measures are effective so that no innocent people have to endure such tortuous practices.
Dr Evans [V]
As we approach to the summer holiday recess, it looks like we all need it. With that in mind, what steps are the Government taking to tackle the effects of body-image issues on young people? Will the Minister meet me to consider the merits of a law that requires a logo to be displayed if an image of a human body or body part has been digitally altered in its proportions?
Elizabeth Truss
We are working closely with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the issue of body image and its impact on young people. I would be happy to organise a meeting, possibly with those Ministers who are leading on the issue. I also welcome the work that the Women and Equalities Committee is doing on the subject.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the Government published details of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities and announced its chair, who has previously said:
“Much of the supposed evidence of institutional racism is flimsy.”
Yet we know that black workers with degrees earn on average 23% less than their white counterparts. The need for action is urgent. Inaction is costing members of the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities both their livelihoods and their lives. What assurances can the Minister give the House today that her Government are serious about finally ending institutional racism?
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
It is important to clarify that Dr Sewell who chairs the commission has not denied that structural racism exists. However, he understands that disparities have a variety of causes, such as class and geography, which the commission will be examining in closer detail, and it is the findings of this commission that will address the issues that the hon. Lady rightly says are urgent and need addressing.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The national conversation on race has been distorted by some seeking to exploit racial tensions without any recognition of the progress that we have made as a multi-ethnic democracy and society. Guided by the evidence, this commission will improve and inform the conversation. It will use data to look at complex and interdependent factors in the round to better understand why disparities exist and what action can be taken to reduce them. The commission will be producing evidence-based recommendations.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, as a Treasury Minister, I will be considering the findings of that report, so I thank the hon. Lady for raising that matter.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
The key priority during the coronavirus crisis is to make sure that we keep women in jobs, and that has been our No. 1 focus as a Government. Of course, it is vital that we address the issues that cause the gender pay gap, and we continue to help more girls study maths and science, which I talked about earlier, and we also continue to address discrimination in the workplace.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
Mr Speaker
If the Minister can answer anything, it would be good, but if not, I understand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
How about: I will take the hon. Lady’s question and give her a full response?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Kemi Badenoch
We are absolutely clear that alcohol is no excuse for domestic abuse or any other kind of abusive behaviour. We are acutely aware of the need to put victims at the heart of our approach to tackling domestic abuse at this time. We are working closely with domestic abuse charities, the domestic abuse commissioner and the police to understand the needs of victims of this type of abuse and how we can best support them.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gareth Davies
Can I start by congratulating the Prime Minister on his one-year anniversary as Conservative party leader? As we look at our long-term economic recovery, can he assure me that Lincolnshire will receive the required funding to boost digital connectivity for all the people of Grantham, Stamford, Bourne and our local villages?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed I can, which is why we have pledged not only £5 billion in funding for gigabit-capable broadband across the country, including the hardest-to-reach areas but additionally a £34 million package for Lincolnshire superfast broadband, helping 135,000 households to benefit from gigabit-capable speeds.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I start by welcoming reports this week of significant progress in the vaccine trials in Oxford? We all know that there is a long way to go, but I want to record my thanks and admiration for everyone involved in this huge effort.
Under my leadership, national security will also be the top priority for Labour, so I want to ask the Prime Minister about the extremely serious report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which concludes that Russia poses
“an immediate and urgent threat”
to our national security, and is engaged in a range of activities that include espionage, interfering in democratic processes, and serious crime. The Prime Minister received that report 10 months ago. Given that the threat is described as “immediate and urgent”, why on earth did he sit on it for so long?
The Prime Minister
Actually, when I was Foreign Secretary, for the period I have been in office, we have been taking the strongest possible action against Russian wrongdoing, orchestrating, I seem to remember, the expulsion of 130—153—Russian diplomats around the world, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat on his hands and said nothing while the Labour party parroted the line of the Kremlin, when people in this country were poisoned on the orders of Vladimir Putin.
Keir Starmer
I stood up and condemned what happened in Salisbury, and I supported the then Prime Minister on record. I would ask the Prime Minister to check the record and withdraw that—I was very, very clear. The report was very clear that until recently the Government badly underestimated the Russian threat and the response that it required. They are still playing catch-up. The Government have taken their eye off the ball—arguably, they were not even on the pitch. After the Government have been in power for 10 years, how does the Prime Minister explain that?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s questions are absolutely absurd. There is no country in the western world that is more vigilant in protecting the interests of this country or those of the international community from Russian interference. In fact, we are going further now, introducing new legislation to protect critical national infrastructure and our intellectual property. I think that he will find if he goes to any international body or gathering around the world that it is the UK that leads the world in caution about Russian interference. I do not wish to contradict him, but he sat on his hands and said nothing. The previous Leader of the Opposition parroted the line of the Kremlin that the UK should supply—[Interruption.] I did not hear him criticise the previous Leader of the Opposition. If he did so, now is the time for him to set the record straight.
Keir Starmer
I was absolutely clear in condemning what happened in Salisbury, not least because I was involved in bringing proceedings against Russia on behalf of the Litvinenko family—that is why I was so strong about it. I spent five years as Director of Public Prosecutions, working on live operations with the security and intelligence services, so I am not going to take lectures from the Prime Minister about national security. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think someone wants to go for a cup of tea—we do not want an early bath. Keir Starmer.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says that he will introduce new legislation. I want to make it clear to him that we will support that legislation and work with the Government. It is not before time. The Prime Minister says that the Government are vigilant. Eighteen months ago, the then Home Secretary said that we did not have all the powers yet to tackle the Russian threat. He said that the Official Secrets Acts were completely out of date. Other legislation has been introduced in that 18-month period. This is about national security. Why have the Government delayed so long in introducing that legislation?
The Prime Minister
This Government are bringing forward legislation—not only a new espionage Act and new laws to protect against theft of our intellectual property, but a Magnitsky Act directly to counter individuals in Russia or elsewhere who transgress human rights. Let us be in no doubt what this is really all about: this is about pressure from the Islingtonian remainers who have seized on this report to try to give the impression that Russian interference was somehow responsible for Brexit. That is what this is all about. The people of this country did not vote to leave the EU because of pressure from Russia or Russian interference; they voted because they wanted to take back control of our money, of our trade policy, of our laws. The simple fact is that, after campaigning for remain, after wanting to overturn the people’s referendum day in day out, in all the period when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was sitting on the Labour Front Bench, he simply cannot bring himself to accept that.
Mr Speaker
Can I just gently say to the Prime Minister, as I did last time, he may have to go to Specsavers? The Chair is this way, not that way. If he could address me, we would be a lot better.
Keir Starmer
I see the Prime Minister is already on his pre-prepared lines. This is a serious question of national security. He sat on this report for 10 months and failed to plug a gap in our law on national security for a year and a half. One of the starkest conclusions in the report is that the
“UK is clearly a target for Russia’s disinformation campaigns”.
The report also highlights that this is being met with a fragmented response across Whitehall and across the Government. The report refers to this as a “hot potato” with no one organisation recognising itself as having the overall lead. That is a serious gap in our defences. This is not about powers; it is about responsibility, Prime Minister. So, how is he going to address that gap and make sure the UK meets this threat with the joined-up, robust response it deserves?
The Prime Minister
There is no other Government in the world who take more robust steps to protect our democracy, to protect our critical national infrastructure and to protect our intellectual property, as I have said, from interference by Russia or by anyone else. Frankly, I think that everybody understands that these criticisms are motivated by a desire to undermine the referendum on membership of the European Union that took place in 2016, the result of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply cannot bring himself to accept.
Keir Starmer
There is a serious gap in our Official Secrets Act, laying bare for 18 months, and that is all the Prime Minister has to say about it. One way the Government could seek to clamp down on Russian influence is to prevent the spread of Kremlin-backed disinformation. Obviously, social media companies have a big role to play, but the report also highlights
“serious distortions in the coverage provided by Russian state-owned international broadcasters such as RT”.
The High Court has ruled that Russia Today broadcasts pose actual and potential harm. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time to look again at the licensing for Russia Today to operate in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I think this would come more credibly from the Leader of the Opposition had he called out the former Leader of the Opposition when he took money for appearing on Russia Today. He protested neither against the former Leader of the Opposition’s stance on Salisbury nor against his willingness to take money from Russia Today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman flip-flops from day to day. One day he is in favour of staying in the EU; the next day he is willing to accept Brexit. The Leader of the Opposition has more flip-flops than Bournemouth beach.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I certainly can give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is what the people voted for and that is what we will deliver.
Mr Speaker
I am going to bring Keir Starmer back for one more question. Keir Starmer.
Keir Starmer
Pre-prepared gags on flip-flops. This is the former columnist who wrote two versions of every article ever published! In case the Prime Minister has not noticed, the Labour party is under new management. No Front Bencher of this party has appeared on Russia Today since I have been leading this party.
Finally, I want to ask the Prime Minister about the appalling persecution of the Uyghur Muslims in China. We have all seen the footage of the Uyghurs being herded on to trains and heard the heartbreaking stories of forced sterilisation, murder and imprisonment. We support the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Government in their strong and clear condemnation of China for that in recent weeks. What further steps will the Prime Minister take? In particular, will he consider targeted sanctions against those responsible? Will he lead a concerted diplomatic action with our international partners to make it clear that this simply cannot be allowed to stand in the 21st century?
The Prime Minister
That is why the Foreign Secretary, only this week, condemned the treatment of the Uyghurs. That is why this Government, for the first time, have brought in targeted sanctions against those who abuse human rights in the form of the Magnitsky Act. I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now supports the Government, but last week, of course, he did not support the Government. I am glad he is with us this week. I do not know how many more questions he has got since you allowed him to come back, Mr Speaker, throughout this session.
We have been getting on consistently with delivering on our agenda. A year ago, this was a Leader of the Opposition who was supporting an antisemitism-condoning Labour party and wanted to repeal Brexit. I represent a Government who were getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities: 40 new hospitals, 20,000 more police, 50,000 more nurses. And, by the way, we have already recruited 12,000 more nurses, 6,000 more doctors and 4,000 more police. We are delivering on the people’s priorities. We are the people’s Government. And, by the way, we are the Government who support the workers of this country as well, with the biggest ever increase in the living wage.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
Yesterday, the Tory party held a political Cabinet, with the Prime Minister in a panic about the majority and increasing support for Scottish independence. Apparently, their great strategy amounts to more UK Cabinet Ministers coming to Scotland. Can I tell the Prime Minister that the more Scotland sees of this UK Government, the more convinced it is of the need for Scotland’s independence? A far better plan for the Tories would be to listen to the will of the Scottish people. Before his visit tomorrow, will the Prime Minister call a halt to his Government’s full-frontal attack on devolution?
The Prime Minister
I really do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. The only Bill I can think of that is before the House, or will be coming before the House, and which I know enjoys cross-party support, is the UK internal market Bill. Although that is a massively devolutionary Bill, which gives huge powers straight back from Brussels to Scotland, its principal purpose is to protect jobs and protect growth throughout the entire United Kingdom to stop pointless barriers of trade between all four parts of our country. Anybody sensible would support it.
Ian Blackford
Anybody sensible would realise from that answer that the Prime Minister simply does not get Scotland. In 2014, the people of Scotland were promised devolution-max, near federalism and the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Instead, we got a Tory Trade Bill that threatens our NHS, an Immigration Bill that will devastate our economy, and a power grab that will dismantle devolution. Scotland’s powers grabbed by Westminster, workers’ rights attacked, the rape clause and the bedroom tax, our NHS up for sale—the overwhelming majority in Scotland’s Parliament, its MPs and its people oppose all those measures. How can the Prime Minister claim that this is a Union of equal partners when his damaging policies will all be imposed upon Scotland against its will?
The Prime Minister
I hesitate to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of failing to listen to my last answer, but it is clear that the UK internal market Bill is massively devolutionary, with 70 powers passed from Brussels to Scotland. It is quite incredible. Of course, its purpose is very sensible, which is to protect jobs and growth throughout the entire UK, but just on a political level it seems bizarre that the Scottish nationalist party actually wants to reverse that process and hand those powers back to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. Is that really the policy? I do not think it is sensible.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. As I have said repeatedly at this Dispatch Box, it is very important that we wait until the conclusion of this epidemic and have a proper statistical assessment of where we are. That is the course I would recommend to him.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No, and I think that is a pretty lamentable way of looking at it—it is a lamentable question. If the right hon. Gentleman thought there was genuinely something in the ISC report that showed that, for instance, the Brexit referendum had been undermined by Russia, he would now be saying it, but that does not appear. I am afraid that what we have here, as I have told the House several times, is the rage and fury of the remainer elite finding that there is in fact nothing in this report—no smoking gun whatever, after all that froth and fury. Suddenly, all those who want to remain in the EU find that they had no argument to stand on. They should simply move on.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I do indeed agree with that. It would be a fantastic thing to hear the Labour party stand up to their friends in the unions and issue the same instruction—that would be a wonderful thing.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We have already given the East Riding of Yorkshire more than £21 million to deal with the pressures of coronavirus. We have supported 90% of caravan manufacturers, whom the hon. Lady rightly supports, with the furlough scheme. As she knows, we have not only the £2 billion kick-starter fund to help young people into work, but the furlough bonus scheme to retain people in their jobs, as part of a massive package—£640 billion overall—to get our country moving again and make sure that we bounce back stronger than ever.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I am proud that we have fulfilled our manifesto promise. We are levelling up school funding across the country so that every primary school pupil receives at least £4,000 per head and every secondary school pupil £5,150, and I pay tribute to all the teachers and all the schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency for the excellent work that they have done in the last few months.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his question. As he knows, we have removed VAT from all PPE, including VAT on face masks that, as everybody knows, can protect from infection. That removed the burden of VAT in care homes, NHS trusts and for key workers. For home-made face masks, those that meet the Public Health England guidance will be covered, and will continue to be covered, by the zero rate, but I am happy to ask the relevant Minister to write to him to clarify the entire position.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I can absolutely give her that guarantee. In the current circumstances, now is the time to double down on levelling up and that is what we are going to do. That is why we are rolling out a colossal programme of investment in infrastructure, massive investments in our public services and fantastic new technology, because that is the way to give every part of our country the opportunity to realise its potential.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I well remember Bethany and her question, and I know how difficult this problem is for many people. I can certainly commit to him to look at it in detail and see what we can do, and I will write back to him.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for the extreme tact with which she expressed her question. She makes a very important point, because I am afraid that there are significant comorbidities associated with covid, and we do need as a country to address obesity and the sad fact that we are, I am afraid, considerably fatter than most other European nations apart from the Maltese, as far as I can tell—no disrespect to Malta; that is what the statistics told me—and we will be bringing forward a strategy, which I hope will conform with my right hon. Friend’s strictures.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I was proud as Mayor of London to change the London plan to ensure that we went for Parker Morris plus 10% for our space standards. We will ensure that we not only build back better and more beautifully, but that we give people the space they need to live and grow in the homes that we will build.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
That is wonderful advice, which I will take to heart. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend for a game of Poohsticks in the Hundred Acre Wood. Would it not be a wonderful thing if the Labour party abandoned the spirit of Eeyore that currently seems to envelop it?
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. I thank the local authorities and people of Luton, who are obviously working very hard to ensure that they contain the epidemic, as are other local authorities around the country. We are supporting them, as the hon. Lady knows, with £3.7 billion of investment, as well as £600 million for the infection fund and a further £300 million to support local track and trace. Of course, if local communities do have to go back into lockdown, we will take steps to support them as well.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support this Government’s plans to level up our country and build, build, build. Many of my constituents are concerned, however, about a proposed housing development in Chorleywood. Although it is important that we build more affordable homes, this cannot come at the expense of our beautiful countryside. Can the Prime Minister tell me how the Government will balance local authority obligations to build housing under local plans with protection for the green belt?
The Prime Minister
Of course, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for his question because it allows me to point out that there is massive opportunity to build back better on brownfield sites. That is what we should prioritise, and that is certainly what we will be telling local authorities.
Mr Speaker
Let us head to Scotland, to the deputy SNP leader, who is audio only.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, we already have in place the job retention scheme and the bonus of £1,000 for employers keeping on furloughed workers. She also knows about the £2 billion kick-starter fund that we have instituted, the “eat out to help out” programme, the VAT cut and the many other things that we have done, on top of the £160 billion that we have invested in incomes, jobs and livelihoods throughout this crisis. But of course we will continue to do more as the economic ramifications of covid unfold; of course we are preparing for that. As the Chancellor has said, we must be clear with the country that we cannot protect every job, but no one will be left without hope or opportunity, and this country will bounce back stronger than ever before.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
St Mawes in my constituency was recently placed first in the Which? survey of the best coastal destinations in the UK and the coastal town of Falmouth constantly punches above its weight with very little. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are looking at further financial measures to help the coastal towns that have been hardest hit in their time of need?
The Prime Minister
Indeed I can. We are funding 178 projects throughout England through our £180 million coastal communities fund, and Truro will receive at least £500,000 from the towns fund this year to support the high street and local community.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I chair the new all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, and we are leading a cross-party rapid inquiry to ensure that we have learnt the lessons from the UK Government’s handling of this pandemic before a second wave. We have had over 900 submissions so far, including from bereaved families, from people who have long covid and from professional bodies such as the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation. We will be releasing recommendations as we go, throughout the recess. I simply ask: will the Prime Minister take our recommendations seriously, with a view to acting on them when we come back in September?
The Prime Minister
Of course, I would be very happy to look at whatever the hon. Lady’s group produces.
Speaker's Statement
Mr Speaker
I have a short statement to make about Select Committees. On Tuesday 24 March, the House passed an order allowing for virtual participation in Select Committee meetings, and giving Chairs associated powers to make reports. I was given a power under the order to extend it if necessary. On Monday 8 June, I announced an extension until Thursday 17 September. I can notify the House today that I am now further extending the order until Friday 30 October.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make a statement on the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into Russia.
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire) [V]
This Government will not tolerate any foreign interference in the running of our sovereign state. We have long recognised the threat posed by the Russian state, including from conventional military capabilities, espionage, cyber-attacks, covert interference and illicit finance. We have been clear that Russia must desist from its attacks on the UK and our allies, and we have been resolute in defending our country, our democracy and our values. We categorically reject any suggestion that the UK actively avoided investigating Russia.
The UK has a record of taking strong action against Russian wrongdoing. This is demonstrated by our responses to the Salisbury attack, the ongoing illegal annexation of Crimea and, just last week, cyber-attacks on research and development facilities in the US, the UK and Canada. Our world-class intelligence and security agencies continue to produce regular assessments of the threats posed by hostile state activity, including any potential interference in past or current UK democratic processes. Our 30-year Russia strategy is designed to move us to a point where Russia chooses to work alongside the international community.
Since the Committee took evidence in January 2019, much more has been done. We have established the Defending Democracy programme and strengthened our cross-Government counter-disinformation capability. In March, we formally avowed the existence of the joint state threats assessment team. Earlier this month, we launched the UK global human rights sanctions regime to target serious human rights abuses, with 25 Russian Government officials already sanctioned.
We have committed to bring forward legislation to counter hostile state activity and espionage. This will modernise existing offences to deal more effectively with the espionage threat, and consider what new offences and powers are needed. This includes reviewing the Official Secrets Acts and considering whether to follow our allies in adopting a form of foreign agent registration.
We are taking action at every level. We have stepped up our response to illicit finance through the introduction of new powers by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, including unexplained wealth orders, and the establishment of the multi-agency national economic crime centre within the National Crime Agency. The rules on investment visas have already been tightened, but we will continue to consider whether any further changes are required to ensure that they cannot be abused. Let there be no doubt: we are unafraid to act wherever necessary to protect the UK and our allies from any state threat.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the ISC past and present and all involved in producing the Russia report:
“until recently, the Government had badly underestimated the Russian threat and the response it required.”
Not my words, but the damning indictment of deep systemic failings in the Government’s approach to security that the Russia report sets out. It is not so much that the Government studied what was happening and missed the signs. The truth is that they took a conscious decision not to look at all, as in the case of the 2016 referendum. If there is any doubt about the failure of Ministers to look, let me tell the House what the report says:
“The written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that HMG had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”.
Who provided the written evidence? If we check the footnote, it was the Government themselves. No wonder the Government were so desperate to delay the publication of the report. Sitting on it for months and blocking its publication before a general election was a dereliction of duty.
We have no issue with the Russian people. It is the Russian state that is involved in a litany of hostile activity, cyber-warfare, interference in democratic processes, illicit finance and acts of violence on UK soil. The report finds a failure of security departments to engage with this issue to the extent that the UK now faces a threat from Russia within its own borders. Does the Minister accept that that is in a situation when the UK is, as the report says, a top target for the Russian regime? Does he also accept, on defending the UK’s democratic processes and discourse, that no single organisation was offering leadership in government? Instead, it was, in the words of the report, “a hot potato” passed from one to another, with no body taking overall responsibility.
I thank our security services for the work they do, but they need help, and the report makes it clear that they have not received the strategic support, the legislative tools or the resources necessary to defend our interests. The report concludes that
“recent changes in resourcing to counter Russian Hostile State Activity are not (or not only) due to a continuing escalation of the threat—but appear to be an indicator of playing catch-up.”
When will the Government stop playing catch up? Anyone who saw the Prime Minister’s failure to engage on this at Prime Minister’s questions will be extremely worried. When will the Government treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves, act on the findings of the report and put the security of our country first?
James Brokenshire
The one thing I agree with in what the hon. Gentleman said is the threat we face from Russia, as I made clear in my opening statement in terms of all the different varieties in which that threat presents itself. We recognise and have always recognised the enduring and significant threat posed by Russia and Russia remains a top national security priority for this country. However, in terms of the other assertions that he makes, I reject them. It is a bit rich for those on the Labour Front Bench to lecture this Government on our stance in relation to Russia, given that the shadow Foreign Secretary herself even said at the weekend that the Labour party had got its position wrong.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue of strategy and again I point to the Russia strategy that was implemented in 2017. Indeed, a cross-Government Russia unit is focused on all this and brings things together across Government with accountability through the National Security Council. He highlights the issue of the protection of our democracy. Unlike the Labour party, I am proud that we stood on a Conservative manifesto that committed to defend our democracy, highlighting that we will protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at the polling station and stopping postal vote harvesting, and through measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections. I look forward to the Labour party supporting those measures, which it did not in its own manifesto at the last general election.
Our approach to the threat Russia poses is clear-eyed. That is why we have taken the steps that we have, and, as I outlined, all the different measures we have implemented over the last months and years. Indeed, we have set out the message to Russia that, while we want to maintain a dialogue with it, there can be no normalisation of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends the destabilising activity that threatens the UK and our allies and undermines the safety of our citizens and our collective security.
We take the issue of our national security incredibly seriously. As I have said, I will take no lectures from the Opposition on putting the interests of this country first.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
Given that the Minister has so much to say on this subject, it is really rather sad that it is having to be said in the context of an urgent question rather than a voluntary statement by the Government.
The Russia report could not have been produced to this high standard without the dedication, the expertise and, above all, the objectivity of the ISC’s brilliant staff, some of whom I have worked with previously, yet according to the journalist, Tim Walker, some people within Government tried to sack the secretariat and make political appointments. Will my right hon. Friend, as I still regard him, resist the temptation to fob us off with clichés about not believing everything we read in the media and give this House now a categorical commitment that no party political special advisers will be allowed anywhere near the ISC?
James Brokenshire [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments on the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. He will recall that he and I served on the Bill Committee establishing the ISC so he will know the weight and consideration I give to it, and indeed to the work of its officials and those who work to support its activities, inquiries and investigations. He can certainly have my assurances on the weight and support I give to his Committee.
I commend the work of the previous Committee, which produced the report that is the subject of this urgent question. I also commend all members of the Committee on the robust and rigorous work that I know they will do in the course of this Parliament.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Unlike the Minister, I will at least have the grace to congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on his election to the chairmanship of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and he will have our backing in making sure he stays there because he is an independent-minded person and the right person to chair that Committee. Like him, I thank the Committee for publication of the report.
There is a lot of stuff in the report; this is a cow that is going to give us a lot of milk for quite some time, and it deserves to be taken seriously and considered objectively. The issues it raises in relation to actively looking the other way on interference in the Brexit referendum needs to be addressed objectively by both Government and the Opposition.
That also applies to what the report has to say about the Scottish referendum. I have banged on more about this than any other MP or politician in Scotland; in fact in Scotland, my party has a stronger record on this than any other political party. So let us have the inquiry into Brexit and the 2014 referendum campaign; let us bring that forward, and be clear that that is something only the United Kingdom Government can do—and if they do, the Minister will have my support in that.
When do the Government intend to bring forward the legislation that the Minister mentioned, for example on foreign agents, and can he clarify that there will be ample time to debate the rather confused and obscure effort across Government to counter this threat seriously?
James Brokenshire
We have produced our response to the Committee’s report, and I commend it to him. He highlights the issue about an inquiry, which underlines the fact that it is the work of the intelligence and security agencies to assess any new evidence as it emerges. Given that long-standing approach, we do not believe that it is necessary to hold a specific retrospective inquiry. If evidence were available to be found, it would emerge through our existing processes. We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the way that has been described by some. Indeed, that leads many people to think that it is more about re-arguing some of the issues of the Brexit referendum, not respecting and reflecting the outcome of that referendum. We are working at pace on the legislation and I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities in the House to debate that, as well as other issues related to the report.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The report highlights concerning aspects of Russian interference in UK affairs with a sinister combination of 21st-century technology and tactics that are reminiscent of the cold war. Much of the report is redacted for obvious reasons, but can the Minister assure the House that he is satisfied that, where mistakes were made or threats were underestimated, they are already being put right to ensure that our democracy and economy are protected from nefarious influence, now and in future?
James Brokenshire
We keep all of our response under review, which is why I have highlighted all the different measures and steps that are in place to guard against the risk from action, interference or espionage by any hostile state or hostile state activity and what that requires. That is why, for example, in 2017, we established the NSC-endorsed Russia strategy. My hon. Friend has my assurance on the steps that we have taken and will continue to take to guard our national security. We will ensure that it is absolutely at the forefront.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It was not lost on the House that the Minister did not answer the question of the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Will he do so now, please?
James Brokenshire
I was clear about the weight and importance of the independent scrutiny that the ISC provides and why, from my perspective and the Government’s perspective, we will always examine and reflect carefully on its incredibly important work. I was also clear about the importance of that being conducted in the independent way in which it has always fulfilled its role and responsibility. I am quite clear that that will continue into the future.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The ISC report suggests that the SNP has questions to answer about Russian interference. Does the Minister agree that, given that Scotland and the independence referendum are at the centre of the allegations, it is right that the SNP explains what it knew about the issue and when?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend has made her point clearly and firmly. We wait to see how the SNP responds to the various points that have been flagged. Obviously, our priority is the national security of our whole United Kingdom, and the Government firmly continue to do that work.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I wish that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), or the special adviser who wrote that question, had actually read the report, because clearly she has not.
One of the Committee’s main recommendations was the need for a Bill to reform the Official Secrets Act and for an espionage Act. I welcome what the Minister has announced today and, more broadly and more informatively, what was in The Times this morning. The former director of MI5 and the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) when he gave evidence to the Committee supported that.
In 2017, the Law Commissioners set off a consultation process about that, which is yet to report. I ask the Minister when it will report. I also urge him to make sure that we get the legislation in place, because it is needed. Let us hope that it is not just some spin to take the headlines the day after the report was announced. Let us get it into action.
James Brokenshire
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about legislation. He will note that in the Queen’s Speech, we committed to introduce legislation to counter hostile state activity and espionage. It is right that we put in place steps that reflect things like the foreign agent registration-type processes that exist in other countries, as well as receiving the Law Commission report on the Official Secrets Act. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the commitment of this Government is to act at pace and speed to get this right, to ensure that we do our utmost to strengthen powers where they need to be strengthened and, in the interim, to take all necessary action to call out and highlight Russian activity and take further action as appropriate.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
As a Select Committee Chair, may I welcome this report? Scrutiny is good. It helps to raise the bar and it is healthy for democracy. However, for those who follow such events, it has long been recognised that Russia poses a national security threat. It regularly buzzes our airspace with its MiGs, and the Foreign Affairs Committee “Moscow’s Gold” report highlighted many of the same issues as this report. Does the Security Minister agree that Russia’s cyber and disinformation actions are a reflection of the changing character of conflict, with calibrated state-sponsored attacks designed to interfere with our politics and economy, but beneath the threshold of any military response? Does he agree that we need to adapt quickly to that new form of political competition?
James Brokenshire
I agree with my right hon. Friend. I commend the ISC and his Committee for their work, for their reports, and for the way in which they have put this into focus. I hope to assure him that offensive cyber capabilities are now a critical part of our work, and we will ensure that we integrate that within our military and in some of our broader response to the issues as well—appropriately bounded, obviously, by legal and policy oversight. He is right to highlight the changing nature of conflict and activities against states, and that is why, through our National Cyber Security Centre and other initiatives, we continue to enhance and be vigilant against the threat outlined.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have been warning about Putin’s Russia for 19 years now, and calling for the Magnitsky sanctions for 10 years. What mystifies me is that Government Ministers still give out golden visas to dodgy Russian oligarchs, that Government Ministers still grant exemptions to dodgy Russian oligarchs so that they can hide their ownership of businesses in this country, and that Government Ministers still take millions of pounds from dodgy Russian oligarchs. We have to clean up our act, and it has to start with the Government.
James Brokenshire
I recognise the work of the hon. Gentleman over a number of years on Magnitsky sanction-type regimes, as he rightly pointed out, and I hope that he will recognise and welcome the steps that have been taken in that regard. Equally, I highlight our work to tighten tier 1 visas and the retrospective examination that continues into visas granted before 2015. I assure him of our continued review of and vigilance about the abuse of our immigration system and, if further action is required, we will carry it out. I also assure him of the transparency of the workings of support for politics, which the Government underlined with their manifesto commitment.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I fully accept what the Minister says about this Government acting, and I give credit where credit is due. I have met folks in the Russia unit, and I thank them for their work. However, from 2007 to at least 2014, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said so eloquently, we were hugely complacent and it damaged us. My question is about a foreign agent registration process, because I am unclear about it. Is the Minister talking about spies—making it illegal for the GRU to have people here—or is he talking about foreign lobbying? I have been calling for a foreign lobbying Act for two years now, and the foreign agent registration process in the US is about foreign lobbying, on which we badly need new and updated laws.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We have been examining the laws in different countries that govern foreign agent registration. We are drawing that together into something that will be effective from a UK standpoint, learning whether that has been effective and applying that to our law as we prepare for the introduction of legislation countering espionage and hostile state activity. I look forward to continuing that discussion with him.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I declare my interest as the chair of the new all-party group on technology and national security and as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. The remarkable insight from this report was the lack of horizon scanning, understanding, mitigation and response to modern threats in the technological frontier from hostile states. On the assumption that the Minister agrees that we need to invest in and enhance our capabilities in this technological frontier, when does he intend to come to the House with the Government’s strategy to secure our national security?
James Brokenshire
Members will have heard what I said in my opening statement about the various steps that have been taken, including on countering illicit finance, dealing with the potential abuse of visas and investing through our national cyber-security strategy to counter cyber being exploited against us in so many different ways. That work continues. We also continue to work with those involved in the internet and social media on our online harms legislation, which we remain committed to. That underlines the breadth of our response.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may be aware that I have done more than most to try to stop the return of Russia to the Council of Europe, so I recognise the enduring threat that it poses. Does he share my belief that the Russia report largely underplays the bigger picture and that there is a distinct risk to the UK through the international institutions to which we jointly belong?
James Brokenshire
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work. Russia seeks to advance the sense of a state that supports the rules-based order, yet through all its other actions, we can see that there is a fundamentally different approach. I would underline his focus on the fact that we need to be clear-eyed about the threats and risks posed through multilateral organisations. I look forward to working with him and others as we continue to call that out and ensure that our interests are best reflected through those organisations in upholding the rules-based order.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister still has not answered the question posed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who alleged that there was a political attempt to remove the secretariat of the ISC and replace it with political placemen or women. Was the Minister aware of that—yes or no?
James Brokenshire
I am happy to say that I do not have any knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I do not recognise that at all. From my standpoint, it is important that the ISC is able to conduct its work and present its report to the House, given the mandate that this House provided it with through the legislation establishing it.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I pay tribute to all those working in the British intelligence and security services who are putting their lives at risk here and abroad, including my father, who spent 45 years working for the Government, facing the Soviet Union as the enemy during the cold war. This report highlights that, as we have always done, we need to adjust and adapt to a new battlefield. Can the Minister assure me that the intelligence services and the armed forces will get every resource and piece of legislation they need to be effective?
James Brokenshire
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work of our world-leading and incredible intelligence and security agencies and the steps they take day in, day out to assure our security. We should all be proud and supportive of their actions. My hon. Friend will know that an integrated review and a spending review are ongoing and can be assured of the importance and emphasis we give to our national security. That will be reflected in this process. We will protect and guard our future against the range of threats out there from those looking to undermine this country. We stand firm against that.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
For years, when I was campaigning for an infected blood inquiry, I was familiar with the “nothing to see here” response from Whitehall, until it was decided that there was something to see. If a chief constable played down a spate of local muggings because police chose not to investigate, any MP worth their salt would not accept that. It should not be any different when it comes to properly investigating and taking action to protect our national security and democratic institutions from those who wish to subvert those institutions, weaken or divide our country and break up our alliances. Should not any welcome measures taken to strengthen national security be taken in the full knowledge of what those weaknesses are by having an inquiry into Russian interference in 2016?
James Brokenshire
Our work is informed by regular assessments by our security and intelligence agencies to ensure that dynamic response, hence the reason we are not persuaded by this call for a separate inquiry. We have seen the ISC report and responded to it, but in defending our democracy, we are vigilant against the threats and challenges. Indeed, we have a defending democracy programme looking at further steps and legislation to underpin that. The hon. Member certainly has the Government’s commitment to standing firm on those issues and to the security work that continues to inform all our actions.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I want to pick up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). Russia poses a serious threat to this country and is changing that threat, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to work with NATO and our other international allies to tackle this threat and that we will be resolute in defending our country, our democracy and our values from a hostile state?
James Brokenshire
I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I recognise very clearly the importance of NATO, especially its work on cyber and other support. In that context, I would cite the example of the steps we continue to take to support our allies in the Baltic with the challenges that remain there. The strength of NATO and how that guards our security remain so important to our future policy.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Committee said that Ministers did not want to know or ask about Russian interference in elections and referendums. It seems they did not want to ask either about dark money funnelled into the Brexit referendum through the Democratic Unionist party by a former Scottish Tory vice-chair, Richard Cook. How will the right hon. Member stop foreign donations polluting our elections?
James Brokenshire
It seems as if again the issue is about trying to rerun the Brexit referendum, but I would say on the hon. Member’s broader point that through the defending democracy programme, we are taking further steps to safeguard our voting system and democracy. I hope that she supports that and all the measures I identified earlier—for example, on individual voter ID. She will also know how transparent we are. We do not accept foreign donations and are stepping up our response to illicit finance through the National Crime Agency.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I recommend to my right hon. Friend the report published yesterday by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee into misinformation during the pandemic. It makes clear that state campaigns, including those from Russia, lay at the heart of it. Does he agree that social media companies hold great power yet have been left unaccountable for their inaction, and does he have any general reflections on the ISC report generally, which has caused great interest in the House and certain parts of the country? Does he think it might be welcomed by President Putin in Russia?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes several relevant points on the role of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the need for social media companies to do more. They need to step up, which is why we are introducing legislation on online harms and looking into the further role required of them.
I recognise the point about disinformation. I am sure that the important work of the cross-Whitehall counter-disinformation unit is reflected in the report that my hon. Friend references, which I will certainly look at. The important message we need to send from this House in respect of the ISC report is about that sense of vigilance and being clear-eyed about the threats posed by Russia, but equally that we are not picking an issue with the Russian people. This is about the Russian state and the Russian Government, so we are looking to them to shift their position, which is what our strategy is all about.
Mr Speaker
In order to get everybody in, it would be helpful if we could speed up the questions and the answers.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and for absolute clarity for people watching at home, Russians who invest £2 million or more in the UK can get a visa and in five years can convert that visa into citizenship. Does that not mean that restricting political donations to British citizens makes no real defence?
James Brokenshire
On the tier 1 investor visa, to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers, work is ongoing to review past visas and, indeed, to look at further changes as needs be. If that is required in our national interest, that is what we will do.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
In the context of this report, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely shameful that Alex Salmond, the former First Minister of Scotland, remains in the pay of the Kremlin as an apparatchik of Russia Today, and that so few nationalists condemn him for it?
James Brokenshire
My right hon. Friend has, in his customary and very powerful way, set out the position on Russia Today and those who have supported it and those who have been engaged in it. We all have firm questions, doubts and real concerns about the objectivity of Russia Today. It is right that we have Ofcom and other agencies that are there and the independence of Ofcom on its regulation and therefore the need to step up and make sure that that sense of—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be familiar with the four horsemen of the apocalypse; I believe that Russia is one of those horsemen and a real danger to the free world. Will the Minister further outline what lessons we have learned from the report that will help us to counteract the very real presence of Russian interference, especially in social media? How do we balance safety with our inalienable right to hold and express our political opinions?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman wrapped a few questions into that contribution. The point is that we are taking this issue forward in relation to our legislation on online harms and working with social media and other companies to ensure that information is valid and we do not have that sense of disinformation. We are being vigilant against the threats that are posed.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr Putin sees the potential weakening of our United Kingdom as a win for Russian interests and that our country is better defended, better protected and better together?
James Brokenshire
I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said so succinctly and so clearly. It is in the interests of our United Kingdom to stand together and be united in that way, and we very firmly are better together.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
The ISC’s report states that Russian influence in the UK has become the new normal. Individuals with close links to Putin are now well integrated into the UK’s business and social scene and accepted because of their wealth. Surrounding these oligarchs is an industry of enablers who, wittingly or unwittingly, help to extend Russian influence and the nefarious interests of the Russian state in the UK. What steps will the Minister now take to tackle the growth of this industry and the ability of wealthy individuals to influence British politicians and parties and our democracy?
James Brokenshire
Dirty money—money obtained through criminality or corruption—has no place in this country, and there should be no doubt that we will ensure that the full weight of the law enforcement regime bears down on those who look to use, move or hide the proceeds of crime. Our National Crime Agency is vigilant. We have introduced unexplained wealth orders. We will continue to enhance our legislation to ensure that corruption is rooted out, and that where dirty money is identified and seized, action is very firmly taken.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
As a former special adviser at the Ministry of Defence during both the Syrian and the Ukrainian conflicts, I am well aware of the threat that Russia continues to pose to the UK and our allies. Will my right hon. Friend clarify what immediate next steps the Government will be taking to counter the disinformation and cyber-attacks—including, at the moment, against the vital work on a coronavirus vaccine?
James Brokenshire
The disinformation point is a very relevant one. Our counter-disinformation unit is led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, bringing all this action together across Government to highlight and call out work with the social media companies over this important time. It does incredibly important work to guard against disinformation now, as it has done before. It will continue to do that, as well as leaning towards the online harms legislation that I have already spoken of.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Let’s park the lines from Mr Cummings, shall we? The Conservative party takes money from the Russians, No. 10 suppressed the report, and the Prime Minister forgot that his first duty is the security of the British people. So will the Minister go away and tell the Prime Minister to investigate the Kremlin’s role in undermining our democracy?
James Brokenshire
I will take no lectures from the Labour party, or indeed the Whips’ question that the hon. Gentleman has asked me. This Government and my party are vigilant on issues of national security, and we will remain so. We will be clear-eyed as to the threat that Russia poses, and where further action needs to be taken, as I have said, we will do so.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
The report said that it was surprisingly difficult to establish who has responsibility for what. That conclusion is supported by the Government’s response, which alludes to the responsibilities of the Paymaster General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, DCMS, the Home Office, the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and the PM. At 10 am this morning, we still did not know who had drawn the short straw and would come to the House to defend the indefensible. Is not this report, the Government’s delay in publishing it and their reaction to it just further examples of the incompetence and arrogance that we have come to expect of this Conservative and Unionist Government?
James Brokenshire
No. I am very comfortable in underlining the Government’s commitment to defending our national security. As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about structure, this is about having a whole-Government approach, ensuring that each part of Government is engaged and working, with the concept of fusion in drawing this together. That is what we do, with our National Security Council and the accountability through that to deliver.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm for the people of Wolverhampton that our intelligence and security agencies are capable of identifying and dealing with any threat in this evolving battle space?
James Brokenshire
I can tell my hon. Friend of the support and resourcing that is given to our intelligence and security agencies and how we have such world-leading capabilities. We can be proud of the work they do for us—and therefore for his constituents in Wolverhampton, and indeed for constituents across the country—as we give them that support in defending our security.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
The ISC stressed the need to ensure that our response to the threat from Russia is not solely focused on national events and organisations. So what does the Minister intend to do to protect our public sector—our NHS and local government services, which he knows all about—from malicious Russian cyber-intrusion once funding for the national cyber-security programme comes to an end in March next year?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point, because our cyber-defences are something in which this Government have very clearly invested. He highlights the National Cyber Security Centre, and I know the work that it does with local government and the devolved Administrations in ensuring that they are vigilant against the threats. Indeed, only last week, it called out Russian activity against pharmaceutical companies and others to ensure that our knowledge remains here and that we guard it against attack.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
This morning, on the radio, Commissioner Cressida Dick said that people should be concerned about “the threat from Russia”. Will the Minister assure me that our security services will work with our police services to make sure that they have the data, the information and the resources to deal with any local threats?
James Brokenshire
There is strong join-up between our security and intelligence agencies as well as our police. Indeed, when looking at the work that I do each week, I see that join up and see that work, so she can absolutely have my assurance in that regard.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Minister has told us today that he is confident that there is no need for an investigation into any potential Russian interference in the EU referendum, because if there had been, it would have been detected by existing processes. Given that this report sets out that there was Russian interference in other referendums and that the Russians continue to be involved in British politics, why does he think that the Russians chose to sit that one out?
James Brokenshire
Again, we are certainly hearing some questions that are about trying to refight the referendum. Actually, we should respect the referendum, and that is what this Government have done, and we have been elected on a mandate to deliver on the Brexit referendum. None the less, the hon. Lady certainly has my assurance that we are vigilant against that sense of intrusion and disinformation and I have outlined the steps that we are taking to guard against that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It comes as no surprise to me that the Russian state seeks to infiltrate and influence so many aspects of our society, but I am particularly worried by Russian cyber-activity, especially attempts to steal our secrets, intellectual property and new technologies. I know that, in recent years, more resources have been given to the security and intelligence services, particularly GCHQ and the Army’s 77th Brigade, but does my right hon. Friend agree that our offensive cyber-capabilities may well have to be enhanced further given the persistent and increasing threats from Russia?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend, with all of his experience, has highlighted a very important point about the need for offensive cyber-capabilities. We were the first NATO ally to offer offensive cyber-capabilities to the alliance. I am quite sure that this is an issue that will be of core interest and focus as we look at the integrated review. He sets out a compelling argument for further investment. I am quite sure that that will be reflected on very carefully.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Despite repeated requests and reminders from hon. and right hon. Members, this Government have dithered and delayed for 10 long months and tried their very best to suppress the Russia report, and now we all know why. Given the threat to our national security and the fact that it was about preserving and protecting our very democracy itself, how could this Government have been so incompetent, so asleep at the wheel, and not even asked the bare minimum obvious questions?
James Brokenshire
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation at all. I welcome the fact that, speedily after its creation, the ISC report was published, shining a light on the issue of Russia and the need for vigilance, which this Government continue to demonstrate. It is that approach that we take through from this rather than the political characterisation that he sought to proffer.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The ISC report rightly thanks five Russia experts from outside the intelligence community, two of whom have done some great work with the Legatum Institute. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking those individuals, the institute and, indeed, its visionary founder, Christopher Chandler, for having the courage and the commitment to expend the resources and take the risks to oppose Russian wrongdoing from the private sector?
James Brokenshire
I commend Legatum and all those who have sought to assemble evidence of the impact and the effect. I think it has added to the report the ISC has produced. I look forward to that continuing as the ISC gets into its stride in this Session and I look forward to the contribution that so many people have to offer to help ensure that the ISC does its job well and can work to ensure that our response to these national security issues is as well-informed as possible.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP) [V]
As if it was not bad enough that we have unelected peers making major decisions for Scotland, the report raises serious questions about several Members of the House of Lords, their links to business interests in Russia and the potential for those relationships to be exploited by the Russian state. Will the Government urgently support measures to enhance scrutiny of the incomes of the Lords to the same level as the rules for registering MPs’ interests?
James Brokenshire
I agree that the transparency of information about political donations is incredibly important. I should say to the hon. Lady that the relevant code is the responsibility of the House itself and it is kept under review by the House of Lords Conduct Committee. I am confident that the Conduct Committee will give due consideration to the clear recommendations made in the ISC report.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The people of Darlington voted to leave the EU in 2016. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the referendum accurately recorded the genuine will of the people, and that the Government were right to deliver on that mandate and take us out of the EU?
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure that that fits in with our subject, so what I am going to do is move on to Yvette Cooper, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I served on the ISC in the late ’90s. We had a big Labour majority in Parliament and a Conservative Chair, the much-respected Tom King. There is a long tradition of Members of both Houses putting aside party politics to engage in independent scrutiny of the vital work that our intelligence agencies do and, crucially, to work in support of the national interest. The Government put that at risk at their peril, so can the Minister answer the question put by the current ISC Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)? Will he now rule out any attempt at Government interference in the work of the ISC, any political appointments to its secretariat and any special advisers to be appointed by him? Will he rule that out now, yes or no?
James Brokenshire
I am very clear, as I have been in response to previous questions, on the need for independence by the ISC. I do not want to see its independence questioned or drawn into any doubt. It is important that the ISC is independent and rigorous. The right hon. Lady can have my assurance on the steps that I take to uphold that.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Yes, Russia is attacking our democratic structures, and internationally Russia and others are also undermining our greatest assets, our alliances and multilaterals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a unit at the Foreign Office specifically focused on protecting our interests and upholding the democratic nature of elections of presidents and chairs of multilateral organisations?
James Brokenshire
I absolutely recognise the different threats and challenges. That is why we have the Government Russia unit, which brings together the diplomatic, intelligence and military capabilities to maximum effect. There is a specific lead official at the Foreign Office who is responsible for our work on Russia. Therefore, the important point my hon. Friend makes about vigilance and the need to draw that information together is absolutely in place. We will continue to ensure that the interests of this country are, through that work, at the forefront and that we defend our nation’s security.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2020
Finance Act 2020
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2020
Business and Planning Act 2020
Channel Islands Measure 2020.
Rented Homes: End of Evictions Ban
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if he will make a statement on the implications of the end of the evictions ban for people renting their home.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
As the Government take steps in the next phase of the response to coronavirus, it is right that we consider how to transition from the emergency measures put in place in March in the face of the then imminent public health emergency. On 13 May, the Government took decisive steps to unlock the housing market, enabling people, whether they own or rent, to move home safely if they need to. The end of the pause on possession proceedings on 23 August is another important step towards more normal life resuming and to ensuring all people—landlords and tenants—have access to justice. Prioritising cases is a matter for the judiciary, but I consider it important that cases such as those of serious antisocial behaviour are heard again.
During this period, we are working to provide appropriate support to those who have been particularly affected by coronavirus when possession proceedings start again. As part of this, we have been engaging with a working group convened by the Master of the Rolls. An early outcome of the group’s work has been changes to the court rules of possession proceedings. These rules will apply within the current legislative framework from 23 August. They will require landlords seeking possession of their property to set out relevant information about a tenant’s circumstances, including information on the effect of the pandemic. This encourages landlords to have the right conversations with tenants before seeking repossession. Through guidance, we are also encouraging landlords to agree to rent repayment plans or rent flexibilities, where possible. Landlords will need to follow strict procedures if they want to gain possession of their property. This includes, until at least 30 September, giving tenants a minimum of three months’ notice of their intention to seek possession, as set out in the measures introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020.
The Government have provided unprecedented financial support to renters through the job retention scheme, boosting the welfare safety net by more than £9 billion and increasing the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile. These measures will remain in place when the courts reopen. We are also committed to bringing forward reforms to provide greater security to tenants, alongside strengthening the rights of landlords who need to gain possession of their property when they have a valid reason to do so. Legislation will be brought forward in due course.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Minister for that response, but it really will not do, because he knows that his proposals are toothless. Eviction law remains intact, so extra information about the tenant will not prevent people from losing their home, and in the middle of a public health crisis. In a Government statement on 18 March, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said:
“The Government is clear—no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home, nor will any landlord face unmanageable debts.”
Labour wants to hold him to this.
The evictions ban ends on 23 August. The Government have failed to plan for what happens next. That failure looks set to lead to evictions and homelessness this autumn. Data from Citizens Advice and others indicates millions of households are struggling with rent. Current law makes evictions mandatory, with no court discretion, if tenants are in two months’ of arrears under ground 8, section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, and discretionary evictions can still be made under section 21, which the Government have promised to abolish but so far have not done so. They could have prevented people from falling into arrears by adjusting social security or bringing in emergency temporary legal changes, but they have chosen not to.
What assessment have the Government made of likely numbers of people facing homelessness? What consideration have they given to public health, with possibly thousands of households becoming homeless as we go into winter? What resources have they provided to councils for the cost of additional advisers and emergency and other accommodation? Will the Minister admit that yesterday’s practice direction will make no material difference to the outcomes for tenants with arrears, as eviction laws remain unchanged?
The Government made a promise. This is not just affecting antisocial tenants; it is affecting people struggling now. Nobody benefits from renters becoming homeless, nor mortgage payers struggling with the end of the deferral scheme. We have called on the Government repeatedly to act. It is not too late to extend the ban and sort out the legal changes in September. For the sake of everyone whose home is at risk, and everyone who cares, I urge them to act now.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady knows full well—the House knows full well—that this an unprecedented epidemic. In its face, we have brought forward unprecedented measures to help tenants in difficulty. We are protecting 8.6 million people as a result of the stay in court action, the moratorium on evictions and the three-month minimum notice period that landlords need to apply.
We have spent billions of pounds on the furlough scheme, which the shadow Chancellor has described as a lifeline, to make sure that people have an income and can help pay their rents. We have given local authorities £4.3 billion. We have given £500 million in council tax relief. We have spent £433 million on the Everyone In campaign to help with homelessness, which has resulted in 90% of homeless people being taken off the streets. We have committed to 6,000 new long-term homes—3,300 this year—to help anyone who suffers from homelessness. I think the House will agree that that is, by any measure, a real effort to help people who are in need.
But we are moving out of the worst of the epidemic, and we are moving through a transition phase. It is right that we normalise proceedings and procedures. To that effect, I have had conversations with the Master of the Rolls and with Sir Robin Knowles. They have been quite clear that they want to ensure that courts act properly to hear landlords’ and tenants’ concerns. They are also very clear that, should a landlord not provide requisite information to the courts about the effect of covid-19 on a tenant when the landlord brings forward an application, the courts will have power to adjourn the case, which will hit the landlord in the pocket—something that will focus the landlords’ minds.
I have been told by many stakeholders and representatives, including the National Residential Landlords Association, that this will definitely be a wake-up call to landlords. It will also be of definite support to tenants, so I am convinced that we have struck the right balance between tenants’ needs and the landlords’ rights. I am convinced that we are supporting people to the best of our ability. I am pleased that we are now moving out of the epidemic and we are supporting people appropriately.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that landlords follow very strict procedures if they want to seek possession of their property? What is he doing more widely to increase security for tenants?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his question. As I said, we will bring forward the renters’ reform Act, which will abolish section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, in due course, when we have stable terrain on which to do so. That will improve tenants’ rights. We will also ensure that there is provision for a lifetime deposit scheme in that Bill. As I have described from my discussions with the Master of the Rolls, the courts have set out strict procedures that landlords will have to follow if they want to claim repossession of their properties. That is the right and balanced course, and I commend it.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
In the end, as I am sure the Minister will agree, we all want to get to a position where no tenant is evicted because of covid-related matters. I recognise that the Government have made efforts, through the statutory instrument and the guidance, to toughen up the pre-action protocol, but what happens if a landlord comes to the court with all the information about a tenant’s circumstances but still wants to go for a section 21 eviction—they do not have to give any reasons—or for a ground 8 eviction, where simply rent arrears will do? If all the information is given to the court, does the court have any discretion to refuse the eviction request?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the Chairman of the Select Committee for that. First, the landlord will have to bring all the information that is required before the court. The courts want to sit in order that a duty solicitor will be present, but other interlocutors may be present to mediate, even at that late stage, between the landlord and the tenant to ensure that the right outcome can be achieved. Under the section 21 rules of the 1988 Act, the courts do not have discretion in that particular circumstance, but I am sure that in those cases where egregious rent arrears predate the covid emergency, where there is domestic abuse or where there is antisocial behaviour, we want to see the landlord have their right to bring forward their repossession case. That is what they are allowed to do under the law.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that effective communication is often the solution to many a problem. Will he assure the House that he will do everything he can to encourage landlords and tenants, who may be experiencing financial difficulties, to come together to work out flexible solutions?
Christopher Pincher
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have had several conversations with the NRLA, I have had conversations with the judiciary and I have also spoken to Baroness Kennedy of Generation Rent. I have made those points to them and I make them to the House.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I dread the autumn. Even before covid, my borough of Brent had the second highest level of evictions in London; a third of households live in poverty and more than 30% of employees earn below the living wage, and many face redundancy. This will mean that after paying their rent, the average family with three children in my constituency will be left with just £38.46 a week to feed and clothe all five people, and pay all their utility bills. The Minister may say that local authorities have been given £50 million to help families in hardship, but that works out at less than £1 million per constituency, and this is not about one-off hardship; it is about structural inequality and poverty. So will he increase housing benefit to cover the real cost of average rents and will he introduce fair rent controls so that the taxpayer is not paying out to chase ever-escalating rents and ever-rising property prices, which are distorting our economy?
Christopher Pincher
The best way to help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents—and all our constituents—out of this crisis is to get the economy back on track and people into work so that they can pay their bills and enjoy their lives again. As for the specifics of his constituents’ cases, in fact, we have not given £50 million—we have given £500 million in council tax relief for the most egregious cases and £63 million for the non-shielded food vulnerable to help them. We have protected, as I have said, 8.6 million people as a result of the other changes that we have made. I am confident that we have done the right thing, and we continue to do the right thing—for example, by adding a further £40 million to discretionary housing payments, bringing the total to £180 million, to help the sort of people he talked about in his question.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
In my constituency, I have military families, returning from serving this country abroad, who are unable to regain access to their family homes because of the moratorium on evictions. I have neighbourhoods that are blighted because, despite the best action of local authorities to evict households that are a persistent source of antisocial behaviour, the moratorium means that those individuals are there, thumbing their noses at their neighbours and causing misery for many. May I encourage and invite the Minister to stick to his guns and ensure that we can still take robust action against those who abuse their position?
Christopher Pincher
I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Those who abuse their position make everyone’s lives intolerable. Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, has said that antisocial behaviour is an issue for local authorities, the responsible agencies, Government—possibly even Opposition. People are being let down by antisocial behaviour, and antisocially behaving tenants need to be dealt with by the courts. I will stick to my guns—the Government will stick to their guns—and we will do the right thing by landlords and tenants.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
In my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead, 1,500 people have had to sign up for universal credit, and 12,000 have been furloughed, with the risk of job losses. I am extremely concerned about my constituents. One of them has written to me to say that they have no idea what to do when the ban on evictions is lifted, as their landlord has raised their rent to more than their universal credit payment during the crisis. What can the Minister say to the thousands of people facing job losses in my constituency in response to their concerns about being evicted?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question. New and existing universal credit claimants who have been in work can claim a nine-month grace period from the cap on universal credit that they received. They can apply for discretionary housing payments, and we have made more money available for that particular situation. I would say to her, as I said to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), that the best way to help her constituents is to get our economy back on track and her constituents back to work. We have created more jobs in the past 10 years than ever before. We have closed the gap between rich and poor. The actions that we have taken will support her constituents, and we will continue to do so as we leave the crisis.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I welcome the measures that the Government have introduced to protect renters in Harlow during the pandemic. However, tenants living in permitted-development-rights office-block conversions in my constituency have had a rent rise from £612 a month—a little below the old housing allowance rate—to £718 this financial year, which is a little below the new local housing allowance rate and, after universal credit, that rent increase means that they are £13 a month over the benefit cap, which is recouped. While taxpayers pay more and private landlords earn more, tenants in those blocks end up £13 worse off. What steps will the Government take to ensure that landlords do not move the goalposts and that tenants get the benefit of local housing allowance rate increases?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. He has brought the issue of office conversions to my attention before, and is a doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituents. As I said to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), new and existing universal credit claimants who had been in work can apply for the nine-month grace period on their welfare benefits being capped. There are exemptions for the most vulnerable, including the disabled, and they can apply to their local authority for discretionary housing payments, so there are tools available to help my right hon. Friend’s constituents. The biggest tool of all, of course, is the tool of work, and that is what we will work exceptionally hard to provide to everybody who either has no job or fears losing theirs.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
We might or might not be out of the worst of this health crisis, but when it comes to unemployment and lost incomes, sadly there is very likely worse to come. Will the Minister at least admit that without changes in the law—for example, disapplying ground 8 of section 8 of the Housing Act 1988—landlords only need to follow procedures and renters who have lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their homes, quite possibly in their thousands? Why will he not give judges discretion to look at the facts of individual cases?
Christopher Pincher
I have had discussions with many stakeholders, including representatives of landlords, including the National Residential Landlords Association, which tells me that, according to its research, 90% of renters say that they have been able to meet their rent liabilities. Of the 10% remaining, who either have difficulty or fear difficulty, 75% have said that they have had a good response from their landlord in negotiating flexible repayments or other payment holidays. I think that the landlord community understands the challenge that the economy faces and that tenants face, and is working proactively to support them. We will continue to work proactively to support tenants through the measures that I have described.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As the shadow Minister pointed out earlier, back in March, the Secretary of State said that no one would lose their home as a result of losing income due to covid. It is quite clear from what the Minister has said today that he cannot guarantee that, can he?
Christopher Pincher
We have protected those tenants from eviction through the actions that we have already taken—actions that I believe have been supported across the House. We are now moving into a new stage of this crisis, where we are trying to normalise our economy and society. Of course I cannot guarantee that every tenancy will be retained, but we have taken steps to ensure that tenants are supported. We will continue to take those steps.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
[Inaudible.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, can you hear me?
Bob Blackman
Ah, you can.
I thank the Minister for his answers thus far, but he will be aware of the dramatic increase in the number of people who have fallen into rent arrears during lockdown. The reality is that judges have no discretion whatever if a case is brought and a tenant is more than eight weeks in rent arrears; they have to order an eviction. Will my right hon. Friend, who is going to bring forward legislation in a major way in the autumn anyway, look at emergency legislation now to prevent unnecessary evictions and suffering on the part of people who are currently in desperate need because of their temporary rent arrears? The estimate is that this problem could affect up to half a million people by the time we come to the end of the moratorium on evictions.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is rarely silenced for long. I hear what he says and he has heard what I have said. We will bring forward the renters’ reform Bill, which will be the biggest rent change and tenancy change in a generation, when it is appropriate. In the meantime, we will continue to support tenants and landlords through the measures that I have already outlined.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
We know that 9% of private renters have made a claim for universal credit during the crisis and, of course, we are expecting a massive spike in future universal credit claims in the months to come. Given that the local housing allowance barely covers local rents, particularly in Warwick and Leamington, where house prices and rents are so expensive, surely the Government should adhere to and honour their promise to renters back in March to protect them for the months to come.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have already said, his constituents will be able to take advantage of a discretionary housing payment application to their local authority if they have need. We have given half a billion pounds to local authorities to apply council tax relief to their residents where it is appropriate. Of course, we will also continue to work hard. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement and a statement just a few weeks ago, and I am sure that he will make further financial announcements in due course that will be designed to stimulate the economy as we exit this crisis and to support all our people, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to get back to work.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The biggest cause of homelessness is the breakdown of a private sector tenancy. I am not talking about rough sleeping but the tens of thousands of households that are invisibly homeless, including the 120,000 children every year who live in temporary accommodation, and that was long before the covid crisis.
Will the Government commit to an infrastructure project, like road building, to build at least 100,000 new social homes for rent—that is social homes, not affordable homes—to address the homelessness crisis once and for all? We will not get rid of homelessness unless we have a public sector infrastructure project to build social homes for rent.
Christopher Pincher
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget statement and subsequently, has announced a raft of infrastructure measures that will stimulate our economy. He also, of course, announced the biggest injection of cash into affordable homes in 15 years, since the 2006 to 2011 period, through the affordable homes programme. We have also taken measures to allow local authorities to act more quickly and effectively to build social homes if they wish. From memory, I think that we have built something like 150,000 homes for social rent in the last few years, and of course more will be built. We have a plan to invest in our infrastructure that will support the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The support that the Government have given to small councils, such as mine in north Devon, and fabulous homeless charities, such as the Freedom Centre in Barnstaple, to help people off the streets has been welcome. With the moratorium on evictions ending, however, can the Minister assure me that all that good work and support will be backed up by long-term plans to secure affordable and sustainable housing for my most vulnerable constituents?
Christopher Pincher
I commend my hon. Friend’s constituents, and the Freedom Centre in particular, for all the work they have been doing for her constituents, their neighbours, during the emergency. I absolutely commit to her that, as I just said to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), we will bring forward the biggest investment in affordable housing in the last 10 to 15 years between 2021 and 2026. That builds on the £9 billion that we have invested in the existing affordable homes programme, which has helped to build 241,000 homes in the last year. That is a signal achievement; we intend to go further.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Lifting the evictions ban from 24 August is expected to put more than 200,000 people at risk of eviction, and changes introduced by the Lord Chancellor on Friday will have no teeth unless the court is given discretion in ground 8, section 8 cases. Does the Minister recognise that making a small change to introduce discretion could save many people, who have lost income due to covid, from losing their homes? Or, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has suggested, will he extend the ban and sort out the legal changes in September?
Christopher Pincher
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady. The evidence I have suggests that 90% of tenants—90% of renters—have managed to beat their rental liabilities, and the overwhelming majority of those who have not feel that their landlords have responded positively to ensure that they have more flexible repayment options. I do not see this tsunami that the hon. Lady seems to suggest. I am sure she will not mind me saying so, but when I spoke to Baroness Kennedy yesterday, she also said that she did not believe that a tsunami of evictions was at all likely. We need to be very careful with the language we use, and to not spread fear among potentially vulnerable people—tenants as well as landlords—where fear should not exist.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank the Minister for all his Department has done to help the 8.6 million private renters during covid-19, including those in my constituency. What is the Department going to do in the future to help young professionals and working families get on the housing ladder, because owning your own home is a policy that our party believes in?
Christopher Pincher
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce our new First Homes policy very soon, which will provide discounts of at least 30% on the cost of buying a new home. That will help a new generation of first-time buyers to buy their own home. I am in constant contact with the lending community, to make sure that it is offering decent lending products—decent mortgages—that are affordable to the broad mass of people. I shall continue those efforts, to ensure that people who want to buy and own their own home can do so.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Where landlords and tenants can reach an agreement between them, that is clearly to be welcomed, but the point is that many cannot. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a duty on landlords to inquire as to whether tenants have a problem with their rent because of covid? If there is no duty, does that not mean, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, that the landlord can, under section 21 or ground 8, seek possession of a property and that the courts have to go along with that and have no discretion whatsoever?
Christopher Pincher
I can confirm that landlords do have, or will have, a duty to assess the effect of covid-19 on their constituents, including the financial impact and their vulnerability, should they wish to bring an application before the court to seek possession of their property. If they do not do that, or if the information they provide is not appropriate, the courts will be well within their rights to adjourn the case, which will cost the landlord time and money, and certainly focus the landlord’s mind. I am content with the thought that courts have always done what they can, and that they will continue to do so, to mediate in the execution of justice. They will also do what they can to help both parties in the case, including tenants. Landlords will have a duty as a result of the Lord Chancellor’s statutory instrument, which he laid last Friday.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I commend the Government for the support they have given to renters during a difficult pandemic, particularly protecting them from the minority of landlords who can be unreasonable at times. Of course, the future wellbeing of renters will depend on a vibrant rental market, so what plans does the Minister have to ensure that the rental market is vibrant?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a vibrant rental market is important to our economy and to renters. We must not act in any way, either individually or cumulatively, to drive landlords out of the marketplace. That can only mean that there will be fewer properties available to rent, which is no good for tenants, and it may also mean, of course, that the properties vacated by good landlords are taken up by less scrupulous landlords, who will not give the same good experience to their tenants. We will bring forward the renters’ reform Bill in due course, which will ensure that there is a proper balance of rights and responsibilities between landlords and tenants. The best thing we can do for landlords at the moment, however, is to make sure that renters pay their rent, because that will keep landlords in business.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business—that is a cue for people to leave—and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.
Counter-Daesh Update
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to give a counter-Daesh update.
I should like to begin my statement by paying tribute to the commitment and professionalism of our armed forces. They operate in a world of constant conflict in which the dangers posed by the likes of Daesh and rogue states are ever-present, but we sleep more soundly in our beds thanks to their tireless dedication and sacrifice.
Since the House was last updated on the campaign against Daesh in July 2019, RAF aircraft have continued to patrol the skies on an almost daily basis, conducting attacks on some 16 occasions, striking 40 terrorist targets. Those targets range from caves occupied by Daesh terrorists in remote areas of northern Iraq to weapons caches, bunkers and training camps, and included the destruction of two Daesh strongpoints engaged in close combat with Iraqi security forces.
With that in mind, I would like to salute the service of Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon, who was tragically killed in a rocket strike on Camp Taji on March 11 this year. Lance Corporal Gillon’s entire career was dedicated to helping and saving lives. A sports physiotherapist in her civilian life, she joined the Reserves in 2015 and volunteered to be part of the Irish Guards battle group as a class one combat medical technician. At just 26 years of age, she was fulfilling a lifelong ambition to serve her country, and her commanding officer believes she was destined for great things. Lance Corporal Gillon remains a shining example of what our armed forces and Reserves stand for. Our thoughts are with her family, and I am sure the whole House will join me in remembering her exceptional life and condemning the cowardly attack that cut it short.
When the former Secretary of State for International Development last spoke to the House on this subject, he was able to report that Daesh had lost control of the territory they once held. Thanks to the continued pressure of the 82-member coalition and partner forces in Iraq and Syria, that remains the case, but the hard fight against Daesh is by no means done. Indeed, yesterday was the third anniversary of the liberation of Mosul from its grip. Its black flag no longer flies over the great cities of Iraq and Syria. Its leader, al-Baghdadi, no longer rallies his followers with calls to war. But the threat from Daesh, I am afraid, remains. Its poisonous ideology endures, and its pernicious influence continues to spread. Conflict, economic collapse and inequality are creating new opportunities that it will continue to exploit to grow and recruit. The prospect of its resurgence should concern us all. As long as it is able to operate over there, it can hit our citizens over here. Daesh retains its intent to carry out and inspire attacks against us and remains the most significant terrorist threat to the United Kingdom and our interests.
That is why our commitment to the Global Coalition against Daesh remains unwavering. The UK will continue to play a leading role in the coalition in the often unseen fight against Daesh’s insidious propaganda. Our military support has proven highly effective, and I would like in particular to recognise the work of the Iraqi security forces. They have made huge sacrifices in the fight against Daesh and become a capable and robust fighting force. With support and training from the UK and our coalition partners, they are increasingly able to conduct independent operations. Last year more than 50,000 personnel from the Iraqi army, federal police, border guard, Kurdistan security forces and emergency response battalions completed training delivered by coalition troop-contributing countries. In 2020 so far, the ISF have conducted more than 1,200 missions to defeat Daesh.
But, as the ISF themselves acknowledge, they still require our enduring assistance to defeat the threat. That is why the UK will continue to provide training, mentoring and professional military education to the Iraqis through the coalition, NATO Mission Iraq and bilateral initiatives. That is also why we will continue to provide essential air support. The terrorists have nowhere to hide. We have destroyed bunkers and hidden bases. This is a long-running effort. Indeed, since the beginning of this year, I have authorised 10 strikes on Daesh.
As the Daesh threat changes, so the coalition response evolves. The campaign has now entered a new phase, with greater emphasis on helping the Iraqi Government to develop a strong security apparatus. The UK’s commitment to Iraq’s stability and sovereignty is for the long term. That is why I signed a memorandum of understanding on our future defence relationship with the Iraqi Defence Minister last year—the first such agreement with a western power since the territorial defeat of Daesh. I look forward to building on that work. It is also why the UK seeks to support Iraq to minimise the destabilising effects of economic crisis, which could provide an opportunity for Daesh to re-emerge. Through our funding and leadership alongside the World Bank’s Iraq reform, recovery and reconstruction fund, we have managed to help build the Iraqi economy.
But, even as we seek to strengthen Iraq, there are others who seek to destabilise it. As I made clear to the House in the days following the US drone strike against General Soleimani on 2 January, malign activity by Iranian-aligned proxies only furthers the instability in which insurgents thrive. Meanwhile, rogue militia groups continue to conduct reprehensible attacks on diplomatic premises and bases hosting coalition personnel. We urge the Iraqi Government to protect coalition forces and foreign missions and to prosecute those responsible for the attacks. The coalition is in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi Government, to help defend Iraqis and others against the very real shared threat from Daesh. Without their efforts, Daesh will only be emboldened. The US and Iraq are engaged in an ongoing strategic dialogue to shape the coalition’s future support to the Iraqis in continuing to degrade Daesh—efforts that the UK sincerely supports. The collective mission to crush Daesh remains paramount.
We should not forget that Daesh respects no borders, and as it moves between Iraq and Syria, so must our response. In Syria, Daesh continues to take advantage of a fractured and unstable country. Like the ISF in Iraq, the Syrian Democratic Forces have made huge sacrifices in the fight against Daesh, and we are deeply grateful to them. The coalition continues to support this fight through aerial missions, seeking out Daesh locations and striking when necessary.
We are also determined that those individuals who have fought for or supported Daesh, whatever their nationality, should pay for their crimes. This should occur under the most appropriate jurisdiction, often in the region where the crimes were committed. At the height of the conflict, over 30,000 foreign terrorist fighters answered Daesh’s call and travelled to the region. Around 900 of those came from the United Kingdom. Of these, approximately 20% have been killed; 40% have returned to the United Kingdom, where they have been investigated, and the majority have been assessed now to pose no risk or a low security risk; and some 40% remain in the region, either at large or in facilities managed by the Syrian Democratic Forces or others.
We are working closely with international partners to establish an effective justice mechanism to make sure that all those who fought under Daesh’s black flag are brought to justice. As part of this, we continue our strong support for the UN investigation teams, UNITAD and the IIIM, building evidence of Daesh crimes in Iraq and Syria.
Syria is one of the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophes, and the UK remains at the forefront of the response. The International Development Secretary has committed to at least £300 million of aid to Syria and neighbouring countries for 2020, bringing our aid spend more than £3 billion since 2012 in the region. We are alleviating the burden of millions of people who have been displaced. We are providing food, water and healthcare. We are supporting the education and mental health of children scarred by Daesh occupation. We are providing grants for businesses to help them to grow and crops to farmers to restore their livelihoods.
In Iraq, 7.7 million Iraqi citizens were liberated from Daesh rule, but the damage inflicted by Daesh remains. Since 2014, the UK has committed £272 million in humanitarian support, providing millions of Iraqis with shelter, medical care and clean water. We have also provided £110 million putting basic utilities in education in place and enabling Iraqis to return to their homes.
We should take immense pride in our role as a leading member of the global coalition against Daesh—a coalition that has managed to degrade and bring this terrorist organisation to the point of weakness. Our challenge is now to hold our course, strengthening the grand and unprecedented coalition, denying Daesh every inch of comfort and every ounce of hope, addressing the poverty and lack of opportunities in communities that has helped Daesh to build its ranks, and finally, giving the Iraqi and Syrian people the security they deserve to rebuild their lives in peace. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for making this statement and for advance sight of it. I hope that this marks the return to Ministers fulfilling the Government’s commitment to provide the House with quarterly updates on Daesh. It has been a year and 20 days since the last statement and a lot has happened since, including that the last Secretary of State to make this statement is no longer a Member of this House or, indeed, the Conservative party.
I begin by paying tribute to the dedication of our armed forces and those from the multinational coalition, who continue the fight to counter the deadly threat of Daesh. I also salute the service of Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon. Her death is the toughest possible reminder that our troops, both full-time and reservists, put their lives on the line to defend us. Today, I want to reaffirm the strength of the commitment of my party for the UN-sanctioned global coalition and the comprehensive international approach against Daesh.
The coalition’s success so far is clear. Daesh no longer controls any territory, compared with its height six years ago, when it had sway over 8 million people and a land area the size of our own UK. However, it is also clear that Daesh is stepping up its insurgent attacks and must be at risk of gaining a foothold south of the Euphrates in the area controlled by the Syrian regime, backed by Iranian and Russian allies. The Secretary of State said this afternoon that the RAF has conducted 16 air attacks since July last year. Half of those have been in the past two months alone, so can the Secretary of State confirm how many air strikes have been carried out by the global coalition as a whole in the past two months, and is the number of such attacks rising?
In April, NATO agreed to an enhanced role against Daesh. Will the Secretary of State explain what this role will be, what additional activity will be conducted by NATO and what the UK contribution will be through NATO? In particular, will more NATO mean less US in Iraq and Syria?
A special concern arises from reports that Daesh foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq are relocating to join other jihadist frontlines around the world. Others—the Secretary of State’s 40%—are detained in poorly defended prisons and detention centres in the region. With coalition Ministers set to discuss the emerging threat posed by Daesh and ISIS affiliates in west Africa and the Sahel, what role and commitment is the UK willing to consider as part of any coalition action?
Earlier, I talked about the Labour party’s support for the comprehensive international approach against Daesh. With 1.6 million people still displaced within Iraq and 6.6 million within Syria, the need for substantial humanitarian and development aid is acute. The Government’s Iraq stabilisation and resilience programme was set to end in March 2020. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether it has indeed ended and whether such support will be extended beyond this year, especially in the light of the abolition of the Department for International Development?
More than 3 million of those displaced in the region are refugee children, the blameless victims of conflict. Since the Government voted against the Dubs amendment, what steps have they taken to allow unaccompanied refugee children in Europe to be reunited with their families in the UK?
Finally, the protection of civilians and the upholding of international law through implementation of UN resolutions remain the foundation for the global coalition’s actions further to degrade and ultimately defeat Daesh. Our challenge, as the Secretary of State said, is now indeed to see this through, so that the Iraqi people and the Syrian people may rebuild their lives and their country in peace.
Mr Wallace
I will do my best to answer all the questions. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support of the counter-Daesh actions.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the number of strikes has increased. I can write to him with the details of the total global coalition strikes, but I can say that United Kingdom strikes have increased in the past few months, although that is mainly a reflection of the functioning Government of Iraq and a better outcome that they are requiring and requesting in support. He might remember that the previous Government were in a state of paralysis and then on a number of occasions not functioning. The increase in strikes is mainly a reflection of what we have seen since then, but I am happy to write to him and clarify more the overall coalition responses.
On NATO and training, NATO has sought to see where it can step in and support specifically in the areas of training, security improvements, nation building and so on. It has not progressed as fast as needed, because of covid and the quietness at the beginning of the year, from both the threat and everything else. Also, many of the traditional partners we work with feel that their training has been completed. Therefore, we are working with NATO and the Iraqis to see where else we can assist. We stand ready to do more, and we are exploring more.
At the same time, in answer to the question whether more NATO means less US, the outcome of the US security dialogue will, I think, be the next stage where we will be able to understand what more we can do. We all recognise that the previous Iraqi Parliament passed a non-binding resolution asking the United States forces to leave. That only becomes binding if the Iraqi Government act on it. The new Iraqi Government have said they continue to require coalition support, and that is why the security dialogue is ongoing at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman also asks about the dispersal of Daesh into other safe spaces. It is absolutely the case, as he rightly points out, that safe spaces have been identified by Daesh, such as the Chad basin in west Africa, and indeed we see Daesh active in Afghanistan and Somalia. There is definitely a terrorist threat in west Africa—not all Daesh, but certainly an extremist, radical, militant, Salafi-type threat. That is why the French mission in Mali is supported by a squadron of our Chinook helicopters. At the end of this year, 250 British soldiers will deploy as part of the UN multidimensional integrated stabilisation mission in Mali—MINUSMA—to improve the security situation in that part of the country. For us, it is not only about helping our allies, the French and other European nations there, but about ensuring that the knock-on effect of a destabilised west Africa does not end up on the shores of the Mediterranean and cause another immigration crisis, as we have seen in the past, and that is something we are working towards.
On the repatriation of child refugees, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we took the path of identifying the most vulnerable in refugee camps—either surrounding Syria or where they were—and bringing them back and repatriating them to this country to give them the support they need. It is my understanding that we have done that for over 20,000 of them. As for his comments about Syrian children in Europe, I will have to get back to him about that. However, the Government have made our position clear that we felt the best way to help in that situation was to take refugees from in-theatre, and other European countries should stand by their obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers. In addition, the Foreign Secretary has made it very clear that if children are identified in Syria, for example, who are vulnerable or orphaned and so on, we will explore in every case, on a case-by-case basis, what we can do to help those children as well—whether by bringing them back to this country or making sure they get the help they need.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House. The Kurdish peshmerga and the Iraqi army united with the global coalition to help destroy the brutal Daesh caliphate, but Daesh is now regrouping in territories disputed between the Kurds and the Iraqis. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this underlines the vital importance of our actively helping Baghdad and Irbil resolve their differences in military and political matters?
Mr Wallace
It is vital, for all the people of Iraq and Syria, that we get as much stability as possible. It is incredibly important that we work with the Kurds and the Iraqis to ensure that, where there are differences, they are sorted out or negotiated. Indeed, we should work with both Turkey and Kurdish forces to make sure that they both accommodate each other and that they understand there is often a common need for them to work together, or certainly that it is in their common interest to defeat Daesh and al-Qaeda.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I, too, am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I would like to put on record our condolences to the family, friends and colleagues in uniform of the late Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon. He is right to say that she was identified as having had a stunning career so far, and it is sad that her best days in that career will no longer be realised.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions, if I may. First, is it the Government’s intention, at some point after the recess, to lay before the House an updated threat assessment, following the statement that the Secretary of State came to give in January, after the drone strike by the United States that killed General Qasem Soleimani?
On cyber-recruitment, which has affected my own constituency, and Daesh funding, I appreciate that this setting is not the place for it, but, similarly, can we get a bit more information for the House—I am not sure, but perhaps through the Defence Committee—on exactly what the Government are doing to tackle online recruitment and to strangle off the funding mechanisms that keep them going? The whole House will be concerned to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about attacks on diplomatic personnel and diplomatic infrastructure. Again, at some point, it would be useful to get more information on that.
More broadly, on Syria, which of course continues to break all our hearts when we see the ongoing war there, I have asked the Government previously why they have not taken action to remove British citizenship from the first lady of Syria and members of the Assad family, some of whom are living here in the city of London. I know the Secretary of the State will get up at the Dispatch Box and say he cannot discuss individual cases—that is entirely right—but can he at least tell us if, within the Government, serious consideration has been given to removing their British citizenship? I appreciate that that is not always simple, because sometimes having that citizenship can give us a judicial angle to pursue them in the courts.
Lastly—this is a more broad question—are we to take it that the integrated review is now fully back up and running, and when can we expect its publication?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to publish, probably in the autumn, a threat assessment—I will probably put it out as a written ministerial statement in the Library—to give him an update. If that is all right, I will do it for Iraq and the region as well, because I think it is in everyone’s interests to get a sense of the threat that our allies, and also our troops, face.
On cyber and recruitment, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is the age when a terrorist in Syria can reach out to his constituents, radicalise them in their own bedrooms, and target them with everything from glamorous glossies to how to make bombs. We have, unfortunately, seen that unfold on our streets. That is why—this comes from my old days as Security Minister, so it many have changed its name; if so, I shall write to him—we set up RICU, or the research, information and communications unit, in the Home Office. Its job is potentially to spot this type of publication, working alongside the police and the counter-terrorism internet referral unit, and then go directly to the internet service providers and ask them to take down the material. If memory serves me right, it has taken down hundreds of thousands of pieces of material.
Daesh is definitely very, very clever at using that medium. That is why, some two to three years ago, one of the methods of the counter-Daesh military response that we were using in Iraq and Syria was to target the media operations as much as some of the actual fighters, because those media operations are used to radicalise people who have never been to Syria. It is also appalling that Daesh now often targets those who are the most vulnerable in our homes and our societies because they are all it can recruit. We see too many people who are displaying mental health issues as well.
On diplomatic infrastructure, it is no secret that forces linked to Iran are interested in destabilising Iraq and effectively poking the stick as provocation. That is why the Government believe that the best solution is absolutely to de-escalate the situation. We do not work with the Iraqi Government to try to escalate the problem; we work with them to try to bring people to justice. Only recently, the Iraqi Government did indeed follow up work that we had been doing, and the Americans had been doing, on some suspects, and made a considerable number of arrests. It is not straightforward for the Iraqi Government sometimes, but we do not blame them for that—we recognise that this is a difficult area. Certainly, our messaging to the wider regional actors is that destabilisation helps no one. We would definitely condemn any attacks on our diplomatic infrastructure, which is of course the same infrastructure that delivers international and foreign aid.
On the issue of Syria and citizenship, in every case that I ever dealt with in taking away citizenships, I found, first of all, that it is nearly always a last resort. It is done where we cannot find another way of bringing someone to justice, or where they pose such a threat at a certain threshold. Every case is looked at based on a whole combination of factors, including the intelligence case, the threat and so on. In a sense we are agnostic. It would not just be about people posing a threat from Daesh, but people who pose a threat around a range of characters. Sometimes it is possible to keep them out of the country through an immigration bar—by just saying, “You can’t come here.” It is sometimes necessary to strip someone of their citizenship in order to keep us safe. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that when I was in the Home Office, it was, in effect, based purely on the threat that appeared before us, whether or not it was from a regime or from a terrorist organisation. The factors in that were balanced.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I, too, salute the service of Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon. May I also pay tribute to the commitment and professionalism of all our armed forces? Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will continue to provide our armed forces with all the support they need, not only when they are overseas but here at home?
Mr Wallace
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and that prompts me to answer one of the other questions. The Integrated Review is back up and running. Part of the purpose of that review is to ensure that we have the right ambition funded to the right level with the right equipment. That is the best service that we can offer to our men and women of the armed forces, and that is what we are determined to do through this review.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
As a former physiotherapist myself, may I pass on my condolences to the family of Lance-Corporal Brodie Gillon? Their tragic loss is a loss to us all. Since 2010, the Government have presided over a sharp decline in our regular armed forces. For example, the Regular Army has fallen from 102,000 to just 73,750—a 28% drop in personnel—and the number continues to fall. In light of the fact that NATO has agreed to enhance its role against Daesh, can the Secretary of State say how the UK will continue to play its part with such depleted armed forces?
Mr Wallace
It was going so well until the very last comment. If we stuck all our planning for the armed forces on numbers, we would end up back in the first world war. Modern armed forces need the right equipment and to be doing the right task. It is no good fighting the last war, the war before that, or the war before that. What is important is that we provide the right equipment, that we meet today’s threat—not yesterday’s threat—and that we plan for tomorrow’s threat as well. That is why this Integrated Review has started not with a discussion on the number of troops, or the numbers on the budget, but with threat, the doctrine of our adversaries and then what we need to do that job. On the point about the reduction of the regular armed forces, that was done because we recognised then that reserves, as Lance-Corporal Gillon has shown, are incredibly important in today’s world. We need specialists—specialists who do not grow on trees, specialists whom we use depending on the fight or indeed the need that we have to attend to—and reserves are playing a stronger and greater part in our armed forces and are absolutely key in being able to meet the modern hybrid threat that we face every day. I do not apologise that we have lost some regulars, but have increased our reserves. That is really important because that is why our troops remain among the best in the world.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As somebody who, while in the Royal Air Force, served on Operation Warden, the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, may I acknowledge the RAF’s operations—40 strikes against terrorist targets—in the past year?
On the Integrated Review, may I just confirm again with the Secretary of State that we will look at having well-equipped armed forces with the right numbers of personnel, because the threats are still out there, and the last thing that we want to do in this dangerous world is to reduce our military capabilities?
Mr Wallace
We have been clear that we are not in the business of reducing the potency and capability of our armed forces. We are in the business of making sure that we are modernising to meet tomorrow’s fight. The worst thing that we can do is modernise—actually not really modernise, but equip ourselves—for what happened 10, 15, or 20 years ago. That is why we are determined to invest more in autonomous areas, in new domains, such as space and cyber, which are really important. The threat against space is, regrettably, real. Our adversaries are weaponising space and we are deeply vulnerable in the west to such actions because we rely so much on space assets.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It feels like distant history now, but the vote in December 2015 on the subject of deploying airstrikes in Syria was one of the most difficult that I faced in my time in the House. I was eventually persuaded to support that, and I think that the situation that the Secretary of State describes today is one that justifies the decision that the House took in 2015, but the assurances that I and others were given by the then Prime Minister were around what would happen in addition to the military solution. It was about the reconstruction phase and the aid effort that would be made. What assessment has the Secretary of State for Defence made of the changes to the Department for International Development now being folded into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Will we have an overseas development operation that can meet the obligations that were taken on by the Government in December 2015?
Mr Wallace
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful colleague and, indeed, at the time I think we were in the same Government. We should be proud that we spent £3 billion of aid in reconstruction and investment in that region and in protecting people from the effects of poverty. That is the other half of that reconstruction that he was worried about, and I think that that is incredibly important. On the other part of his question, which related to—[Interruption.] It has slipped my mind.
Mr Wallace
DFID. We often talk about organisations and machinery of Governments—they come around, and come and go—but the key here is the sense of purpose and the mission. The mission has not changed; the mission to invest and to help provide security and stability in Iraq and Syria has not changed and will not change. We all have an obligation to that part of the world because of events that happened perhaps 20 years ago or more, and that is not going to change. Whatever badge we put on the front of a door and whatever office someone sits in, that is not the fact; what matters to the people of Iraq and Syria is whether they are getting the aid, support, stability and security they need. I believe we are providing that, and we will continue to do that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the primary role of British forces in the middle east will remain one of training, rather than of direct action, and that we will not be drawn into further significant land engagements?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right always to talk about the fear of mission creep. I believe the best way to ensure that mission creep does not happen is by Secretaries of State and Ministers making sure that they have strong oversight and that they keep a close eye on the mission, making sure that the parameters are set and communicated. His point is right; the best way to avoid a fight is to avoid a conflict. Our armed forces, sub-threshold, have a very real role to play in preventing conflicts from happening by improving security and training, and in some cases improving infrastructure—for example, in Sudan, the Royal Engineers have helped put in those types of important measures—so that a nation is strong and confident and does not need to resort to conflict.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I echo the Secretary of State’s tribute to the professionalism and commitment of our armed forces. I also wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) about our historical allies in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, who not only feel that threat from Daesh, but feel that there is sometimes a difficult relationship with those in Baghdad. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about what we can do and what he can do to amplify the commitment of this House to our friends in Kurdistan, and about the work we can do to make that region not only safe, but prosperous in the future?
Mr Wallace
I can give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that we are absolutely determined to help those people who share our values and have a key part to play in the reconstruction of that region. He reminds me that we should not forget in this House the evil nature of the Assad regime, which rules Syria, where some of the Kurds are living. That is the regime that gassed its own people and disappeared people in the night. That has not gone away and it is currently focused on a direction towards Idlib, where the humanitarian catastrophe will only grow for as long as Assad and his regime continue.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Defence Secretary for the update on Daesh, but he will know that the world’s fastest growing Islamist insurgency is in the Sahel and west Africa. I welcome the commitment to send UK troops to be part of MINUSMA—the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali—the most dangerous peacekeeping mission in the world. Will he reassure the House that the National Security Council is looking across government at how the UK can address the sources of conflict in the Sahel and west Africa?
Mr Wallace
When my hon. Friend was in the Foreign Office, she did an excellent job on crafting the Africa strategy, from which we still work. Just so that Members realise that I have not just announced a new troop deployment, let me say that the MINUSMA troop deployment was announced to the House some years ago. I fear it may have been so far away that people may have forgotten and thought I have suddenly announced a deployment. Africa is going to be key in the next 10, 15, 20 years. It always has been important, but the spread of Islamist terrorism, through al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and Islamists in west Africa, is a real, existing threat that we have to deal with. They undermine fragile democracies and fragile countries, often those that are very poor. We cannot turn our back on Africa on these issues. Where we can, we have to support those countries to see off the threat of Islamists and help them on the path to successful economies. I know that DFID and its strategies are working to do that, and at the MOD we are doing it through training and other such things. That is why we commit to countries such as Kenya and, indeed, now to Mali.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) made a point about foreign and defence policy in west Africa. Is not the crucial part of that whether the Secretary of State wins his own battle with the Treasury in autumn?
Mr Wallace
I am fighting. I spoke to Lord Robertson of Port Ellen about his quite excellent defence review in 1998. We have all been around that block. It is important that we fight for the correct amount of resource. It is also important that we demonstrate, both to the taxpayer and the wider Government, the utility of defence, which is often sub-threshold in the area of training, nation building or intelligence gathering, so at the very least we can make sure we help our allies. In the integrated review, one of the arguments I will be using to the other Departments is that we help to stop conflicts. We are not there to start them, but to stop them, and in the long run that is how to save money.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that Daesh is now a shadow of its former self thanks to the courage and professionalism of our armed forces. It is clear that Daesh and other terror groups know no borders, so can he reassure me and all my constituents that wherever the security threat comes from we will respond to protect our citizens?
Mr Wallace
The United Kingdom will follow international law and we will do whatever we have to do to keep our nation safe. Of course, it is always our preferred outcome to prevent people being radicalised, which is why I am a great supporter of the Government’s Prevent policy, and to work with our allies around the world to ensure we help them to deliver justice. Justice must be seen to be done, as well as be done, against those threats. That is why, across the world, we will examine every option we can. We will never forget that our job is to keep our citizens safe.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I am glad of today’s statement as well. I revisit a point that has been made, but not answered. Daesh is an evil that we must unite against, but the last statement to the House on these matters was in July 2019. There was a commitment in 2016 for a quarterly update on these matters. I urge the Secretary of State, given the gravity of our ongoing commitment, to make good on that commitment to provide a quarterly update to the House.
Mr Wallace
Yes, of course we should uphold that commitment. I will make sure that, subject to the covid interruption, we return to that. I put on the Government website every time a strike is authorised or happens, so that people can have an ongoing update about what we are doing in their name.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I also pay tribute to Lance-Corporal Gillon, a very brave soldier. My heart goes out to her family.
The growth of Daesh and its offshoots in Yemen depend on smuggling by sea along the Red sea and, specifically, through the port of Hodeidah. What can the Government do to ensure that the sea routes are closed to Daesh to help to bring peace to Yemen?
Mr Wallace
With our deployments in the Strait of Hormuz we participate in constabulary duties, including patrols and so on, and we work with our allies, such as the United States. Where we find intelligence or something suspicious, we try to help to ensure that that zone is not increased by weapons smuggling. Only recently, for example, the Saudis managed to interdict significant weapons supplies to the Houthi, which would have had only one effect—make the situation worse. Those supplies were interdicted and stopped.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
I join with others in paying tribute to the extraordinary professionalism and dedication of our armed forces. I also pay tribute to Lance-Corporal Brodie Gillon. She will be very deeply missed and we will always remember her.
As the Secretary of State said in his statement, the recent increase in its co-ordinated bloody attacks shows that the fight with Daesh is not yet over. For our part, the UK must continue to set an example as a world leader in protecting civilians in conflict. What steps is his Department taking, as part of the integrated review, to update its protection of civilians strategy?
Mr Wallace
When we are engaged in targeting, as the hon. Gentleman will probably know, we are very, very careful to make sure that we adhere not only to international law but all the safeguards we can to ensure innocent people are not killed or put in harm’s way. At the same time, after a strike is concluded there is a wash-up, a debrief and a check back, through different methods, of what exactly happened to make sure if there are any lessons to be learned. I take incredibly seriously anything that would lead to civilians being killed. We do not help the people of Iraq by poor use of our weapons. It is appalling, and if we want to deal with Daesh we have to show we are on the side of the community, not frighten the community or indeed make mistakes that cost lives among those very people we are there to help. That is the most important thing for me. I take a very, very detailed look at it. I made sure, right from the start of being in this job, that I reviewed all the rules that we had signed up to and followed, and indeed what tolerances there were, because that is a very important obligation to any elected Member.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope we can go just a little faster. I appreciate these are important matters—I am not trying to hurry them—but if we go a little faster, we can have proceedings concluded by 3 o’clock.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement and particularly the progress that has been made on degrading Daesh. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on what steps the international coalition is taking to ensure that foreign terrorist fighters do not simply move their fighting elsewhere to locations beyond Syria and Iraq?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend asks a really important question. There are two areas: first, working with international partners through the UN and this investigation team to see what cases can be generated and what justice can be delivered to people either in the region or elsewhere. We are leaning into that and giving the support. In the area of intelligence collection, we collect intelligence, work with our partners and share that intelligence to make sure that we are, I hope, ahead of those people when they are choosing certain routes to where they would like to go. That is incredibly important. We do it successfully, but of course I cannot comment on the individual intelligence that we do.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May I welcome the financial support that the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement in relation to Syria and the Syrian Democratic Forces, which, as he has acknowledged, are at the forefront of defeating Daesh? He will also be aware that the Syrian Democratic Forces are looking after thousands of fighters and their families while being attacked by Turkish forces and associated militias. Does he believe that these actions are counterproductive and should be condemned? Will he say what representations have been made to the Government in Turkey to put an end to these actions, which are putting the security of the region at great risk?
Mr Wallace
I regularly speak with my Turkish counterpart and make my views known to him about what I think is the most appropriate response in that region. I understand, on the one hand, Turkey’s desire to make sure that its border security is intact. The Turks are the ones on the border of that awful war; they have lost thousands of people to the PKK, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation in this country. Therefore, from the Turkish point of view, they are deeply concerned about some of the Turkish terrorist groups. In that area, we in the United Kingdom definitely support Turkey in countering the terrorist threat, but on the non-terrorist threat, or the other threat, we make it quite clear that, in Syria, the Kurds are a key part of bringing stability to that country. It is stability in that country that will prevent further refugee flows and the unstable borders, and it is in everybody’s interest to work together, once they have got rid of Daesh and al-Qaeda, to make sure that that stability is returned.
I should also point out that there are over 3.5 million refugees from Syria in Turkey. I went to visit a refugee camp on the Turkish-Syrian border before the covid lockdown, and I heard from the head of the UN, who said very clearly that the Turks had done an outstanding job looking after their refugees. We should recognise that this is not straightforward, but the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) is absolutely right that some of those Kurds are our allies and have helped us. We need to make sure we help them.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement to the House. Can he provide an update, please, on the number of people who are joining Daesh as foreign fighters and what he might be doing to reduce the number of British citizens, or indeed prevent them from, joining such an evil force?
Mr Wallace
Fortunately, the flow of foreign fighters into Syria has almost dried up, but it is the case that in the United Kingdom and elsewhere we see people still aspiring to travel. When we see them, either we use the Prevent scheme to try to divert them away from that course or, if we have to, we disrupt them through other methods. The message has to be that there is no glory in going to Syria; it makes things worse. We all need to work together to prevent extreme radicalisation.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
A recent King’s College report found that inaction from western Governments in dealing with their own citizens who affiliated to Daesh and who are detainees in Syria and Iraq is providing an ideal breeding ground for a revival of the terrorist caliphate. With reports of escapes from inadequately guarded detention facilities, the authors warned that this is posing a significant, long-term and strategic risk to the United Kingdom. What is the Secretary of State going to do to address this?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady is right to identify the concerns that we all have, but it is not as straightforward as she might think. If I were to go to Syria and take people against their will, I would be guilty of rendition. Funnily enough, the people who can be put on trial and convicted are the ones who do not want to come back. We have all suffered in this House—I am afraid I have spent money paying for the rendition that went on when her Government were in office. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been paid because of the illegal rendition of citizens. That is something we have to be careful—
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady cannot shake her head. She is part of the Labour party, and the Labour Government cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds paying compensation—predominately to terrorists—for people being rendered. It is not as straightforward as she thinks. That is why we are working with the UN and why we want it to be evidence based, and that is why I introduced, in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, the designated-area offence to make it easier to bring these people to justice in future.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his statement. I particularly welcome the contribution that British forces have made and pay particular tribute to service personnel from my constituency, Warrington South. As my right hon. Friend will know, British forces made the second largest overall contribution to the fight against Daesh, after the US: we led a 1,000-strong force. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the UK will remain at the forefront of the response to Daesh and, of course, the rebuilding efforts that really need to follow?
Mr Wallace
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The assurance that I can give is that we tailor the size of our forces to the threat and the need. Currently, we have only 150 personnel in the country. We have 1,000 across the region who are engaged in providing air support and other support, but that is how far we have come down and still managed to make sure that we can support the Iraqis in dealing a blow to Daesh when they require it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Of course, any rebuilding effort now faces the double whammy of the coronavirus pandemic, which the Disasters Emergency Committee says is at risk of spreading like wildfire in refugee camps in Syria and elsewhere. The Secretary of State spoke of the aid money that is going in, but will he say specifically what the UK Government are doing to tackle the pandemic among people displaced by the activities of Daesh? As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked, what impact will scrapping DFID have on the Government’s specialist expertise in responding to this situation?
Mr Wallace
On the hon. Gentleman’s last question, no one is scrapping the expertise in DFID—they are just merging the two Departments—so I think that expertise will remain. The aid is currently delivered directly into the camps through the UN and other agencies and they do, of course, have a covid response plan. I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of that response. We should pay tribute to the aid workers who are still delivering aid and support in both Iraq and Syria, often in a very hostile environment.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Those who have assisted Daesh should feel the full force of the law. Does the Secretary of State agree that our duty to protect our troops, our citizens and other innocent civilians precedes all other considerations?
Mr Wallace
Yes, it does. It is in the departmental name: Defence. We have to do it and keep ourselves safe, but never forget that our allies are part of that process.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State has referred to UK citizens who have returned having fought alongside Daesh. Does he feel that there needs to be a change in the law to ensure that those who have offered moral support—I am thinking of women who have travelled to become wives of Daesh fighters—are dealt with in our justice system?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady makes a really good suggestion. I am no longer the security Minister, but I think that it is something that we should definitely look at. We changed the law to make it much easier to convict people if they go to a designated area, to make sure that if they are there and do not have a reasonable excuse such as working for a UN aid agency and so on, they could be convicted. That is one of the measures that we have taken, but I like the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and it is certainly something we should look at.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Syria is one of the world’s largest catastrophes. Millions of Iraqis were held at the hands of Daesh, and we have worked hard to clear up the mess that it left behind. The job is not over. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to help to rebuild and assist in tackling the poverty that has been left in Daesh’s wake?
Mr Wallace
As long as the Iraqi Government wish us to be there, to support them and help them in their defence against Daesh, we will be there.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, reminding us that Daesh has not gone away, with the insurgency continuing. In March, Daesh temporarily suspended its operations in Europe due to covid-19, warning its followers to
“stay away from the land of the epidemic.”
Like everyone else, it has continued to operate online, so what more can the Government do to eliminate that online presence and tackle the radicalisation or recruitment of terrorists among UK citizens?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government published an online harms White Paper about a year ago. It is really important that we encourage or make internet service providers and internet companies take a slice of responsibility. They cannot be agnostic on some of the poison that is spread on the internet, whether by cyber-bullying, sexual exploitation or, indeed, radicalisation. That is where we all need to go next.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I do not think it necessary to suspend the sitting. As long as hon. Members leave in a careful, spread-out fashion, that would suffice. I thank them for leaving so gracefully.
Bill Presented
Coronavirus Inquiry Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Edward Davey presented a Bill to require the Prime Minister to establish a public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 168).
Welfare (Terminal Illness)
Wednesday 22nd July 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Welfare (Terminal Illness) Bill 2019-21 View all Welfare (Terminal Illness) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about terminally ill people in the welfare system. The aim of this Bill is to encourage the Government to address the failures of the special rules for terminal illness, which do not fast-track some terminally ill people for benefits, and to make it easier for terminally people to access the benefits that they need. In particular, it addresses the need for urgent action to reform two aspects of the special-rules guidelines that are a source of distress and difficulty for people living with terminal illness. They are the six-month rule which, under section 82 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, obligates someone to provide medical proof that they have six months or less to live so that they can access benefits quickly and at a higher rate; and the three-year award—a Department for Work and Pensions guideline forces terminally ill people to reapply for benefits if they live longer than three years after the benefit is awarded. As I hope to outline clearly, those two deeply unfair rules are the source of much distress and anguish for individuals and families dealing with the shattering consequences of terminal illnesses such as motor neurone disease, terminal cancers, advanced lung and heart conditions and a range of neurological conditions, which are equally affected.
I want to begin by paying tribute to all the campaigners and charities who have campaigned so tirelessly for a change in legislation, particularly the Motor Neurone Disease Association and Marie Curie, which collaborated with the all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness on its report “Six months to live?”, published last year. I am really grateful that the APPG’s chair, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), is co-sponsoring my Bill. I would like to thank some of the other charities that have campaigned on this, including the British Lung Foundation, Sue Ryder, Macmillan and St David’s Hospice in Newport.
I also want to pay tribute to my friend Madeleine Moon, the former Member for Bridgend, who did so much good work on this issue during her time as chair of the all-party group on motor neurone disease. Madeleine cared for her late husband, Steve, who died from motor neurone disease in 2015, and dealt at first hand with the mental and emotional toil that comes with supporting a loved one with terminal illness. The Bill she brought to the House on this issue in 2018 is the inspiration for this Bill being brought forward today, and I have no doubt that the pressure that Madeleine and other campaigners exerted urged the Government to announce a review in July 2019.
We are now over a year on from the review being launched, and there is still no official news from the Government. However, having spoken to the Secretary of State yesterday, I know that an update is near. I appreciate that there have been some unforeseen disruptions, and the review was paused during the covid-19 pandemic, but in the time that has passed since the review was announced, more than 2,000 people will have died from motor neurone disease alone. Tragically, many of those individuals could have spent the last months of their life struggling to access the benefits that they desperately need.
The special rules for terminal illness claims process is intended to enable people who are terminally ill to access benefits rapidly without going through the standard application process. A claim under the special rules requires a person’s doctor, consultant or specialist nurse to submit a DS1500 form stating that the person is likely to die within six months. That forces people who have unpredictable terminal illnesses or those expected to live longer than six months to apply via the standard claims process, which involves filling in long forms, attending assessments, delays in payment, lower rates and even meeting work coaches, all while waiting months for payments. Clearly, that is highly inappropriate for people who have been given the devastating news that their condition is terminal.
Statistics available for the personal independence payment, which is just one of the benefits impacted by the legislation, illustrate the human cost of the flaw in the system. Between 2013 and 2018, 74,000 PIP claimants died within six months of making their claim. However, around 10% of those people—nearly 8,000—saw their claims disallowed by the Department for Work and Pensions, including more than 1,000 who claimed under the special rules and 3,680 who died within three months of their application being disallowed. Last year alone, 1,820 PIP claimants died within six months of registering a claim that was disallowed at the initial decision.
As things stand, only 50% of the people diagnosed with motor neurone disease claim personal independence payment under special rules because of the six-month rule. It is unfair to ask some people with terminal illnesses to apply through the normal rules because they might have a slightly longer life expectancy than others, or because it is not possible to accurately predict that they are in the last six months of life. That is especially true for inherently unpredictable conditions such as motor neurone, where the rate of disease progression varies from case to case and doctors cannot give a precise prognosis of life expectancy. That is true for other conditions. For example, people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can experience sudden and potentially fatal worsening of their condition, which is often brought on by infections. Research from Marie Curie showed that the accuracy of prognostic estimates for terminally ill patients in the UK varies significantly, from 23% to 78%. This failing system must be changed to allow for a sensible degree of flexibility, and that means bringing an end to the six-month rule.
It is not just campaigners who are calling for an end to the rule. Earlier this month, the High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that the six-month limit was discriminatory and “manifestly without reasonable” justification. As the MND Association, Sue Ryder and other charities have repeatedly emphasised, clinical guidance should be the starting point for benefit eligibility criteria for people with a terminal illness. They ask that a medical practitioner or clinical nurse make a clinical judgment that the person has a progressive disease that can reasonably be expected to cause death.
The unpredictability of terminal illnesses is the important reason why the separate but related three-year award needs to go. It is a clear anomaly that terminally ill benefit claimants whose condition has no prospect of improvement are eligible for shorter awards through the special rules than those who claim through the standard process. For example, ESA support group claimants with progressive conditions are entitled to the severe conditions exemption, giving them a lifetime award, while higher-rate PIP claimants can qualify for an ongoing award with a light-touch review at the end of the 10-year point. However, claimants using the special rules process are not able or eligible to receive either of those longer awards and receive a maximum three-year award. Emma Saysell of St David’s hospice in Newport rightly highlights that many people who have reached this point are nothing like they were when the benefit was first awarded and will never be any better than they are at that point. It is a cruel, absurd and disturbing injustice that people who are extremely ill, including some who are paralysed, ventilated or unable to speak, are receiving letters telling them benefits will stop unless they make a new claim.
Last month, at Work and Pensions questions the Minister said that both he and the Secretary of State would make changes to the status quo shortly. I obviously welcome that indication, and I hope “shortly” means very soon indeed—
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
indicated assent.
Jessica Morden
And I think it probably does mean that from the Minister’s indication.
In his comments, the Minister also cited three areas for potential changes: the six-month rule, improving consistency in the system and raising awareness to ensure that people know what is available to them through the special rules. I agree with Macmillan that any reform of the special rules should be accompanied by a renewed programme of engagement with clinicians to ensure they are properly supported to implement them. I also hope we can address the issue of non-medically trained assessors challenging doctors.
The Bill is not a money Bill, but it does call again on the Government to look at changes that can and should be made. In Scotland, which has some devolved powers in this area, the Scottish Parliament passed the Social Security (Scotland) Act in 2018, thus removing the six-month restriction. The changes in Scotland will provide an indefinite award to claimants under the special rules, rather than a maximum of three years.
In 21st century Britain we cannot tolerate a situation where our most vulnerable citizens and their families are forced to spend their final months together wrestling with the complexities of an obstructive benefits system. In a recent MND meeting in Parliament, a daughter quoted her father as saying:
“It was degrading to feel that I had to beg for financial support from a system I had paid into most of my life. I felt abandoned and reduced to a number.”
The word “terminal” should be enough. It should not be about time, as no one can guarantee how long the terminally ill will live, regardless of their prognosis. The criteria for the terminally ill need to change before more people suffer at the hands of this system.
As Madeleine Moon said so powerfully in a speech in this place back in 2018 when she was an MP:
The unknown time you have must not be spent worrying about accessing benefits or keeping a roof over your head; it must be spent in love, laughter, and taking the painful journey together with dignity and compassion.—[Official Report, 18 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 456.]
I ask the Government to look at this matter again: to publish the details of the review and consider making suitable provisions to ensure that our welfare system works for the people it was built to serve in their time of need.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jessica Morden, Peter Aldous, Drew Hendry, Hywel Williams, Dr James Davies, Tonia Antoniazzi, Chris Evans, Carolyn Harris, Judith Cummins, Matt Western, Nick Smith and Mark Tami present the Bill.
Jessica Morden accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 169).
Summer Adjournment
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
From the outset, I have to impose a six-minute time limit on speeches in order that everyone who has indicated that they would like to speak has an equal chance to do so.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I have the great privilege of representing Filton, which for more than a century has pioneered and led the world in aerospace. It is where the British Concorde was designed and built. The south-west hosts one of the largest and most significant aerospace clusters in the UK, with the top 14 global aerospace companies having a significant presence in our region. Some 17,500 jobs are due to the work of that sector specifically, which generates £1 billion annually for the greater south-west. That includes the wider supply chain and research work in local universities, such as the University of the West of England in my constituency.
The UK aerospace sector represents more than 110,000 jobs. The whole aviation sector is worth £52 billion a year, which equates to roughly 3.4% of our country’s GDP. In my constituency, well over 20,000 jobs are directly dependant on the aerospace and defence sectors, with many more involved in the supply chain. In 2019, the aerospace sector contributed £32 billion in exports to the UK economy.
My constituency has always been at the forefront of research and development and innovation in the aerospace sector, so it is good to see the measures that have been put in place to protect and enhance the industry. It relies on highly skilled personnel in research and development, manufacturing and production, as well as a supply chain of small and medium-sized enterprises. It represents a skills base and a body of knowledge that our country cannot afford to lose.
Companies that I have spoken to recognise and appreciate the level of commitment and help that the Government have shown, including the furlough scheme, support from the Bank of England’s corporate finance facility, funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute, which supports R&D, and support from UK Export Finance. The sum of that approaches about £9 billion.
If the Prime Minister wants to make the UK a science superpower, however, which I wholeheartedly support, I ask the Chancellor to consider increasing the proportion of Government R&D funding from the present level of 50:50 match funding to equal that of our European competitors, some of whom are ignoring EU state aid rules and supporting their industry’s R&D to a ratio of 80:20. I echo the words of Matt Allen, the regional officer of Unite, with whom I have spoken often in the last few weeks, and say that if the Government invest in R&D here, the industry is much more likely to end up producing the products that are designed here, which will obviously help the economy and help to protect the industry.
The industry is grateful for the furlough scheme, but as the scheme winds down, we should consider a strategic sector-by-sector version for specific industries such as aerospace. I am reassured and encouraged after many meetings with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), the latest of which was yesterday evening, that nothing is off the table when it comes to considering support for that vital sector.
Nearly 70 aircraft flown by UK-registered airlines are more than 15 years old and could be replaced by new aircraft that have better environmental standards and use 25% less energy. All new aircraft in service will be certified to fly with up to 50% of sustainable fuel on board and will be much quieter. The Prime Minister announced the ambition for this country to be the first to build an all-electric commercial aircraft, which will encourage the development of jet zero technology, a net zero carbon emissions aircraft, by 2050. The Government should support the scrapping of the 70 aircraft, allowing airlines to design and build newer aircraft to protect jobs and keep skills here.
I add my support to calls for a dedicated, long-term supply chain investment fund to support SMEs in the aerospace supply chain, many of which are world leaders in precision engineering and some of which have only one customer. The investment will give those companies the confidence to invest in the sort of world-beating technology that will power the industry well into the future.
In January 2018, it was reported that nearly a quarter of currently employed engineers will have retired by 2026. That is very troubling, but I remind the Government that one way to ensure that the aerospace sector has new talent for the future lies in the highly prized apprenticeships that the industry offers.
We must also bear in mind the vital strategic value to the country of a sovereign defence manufacturing capability, which gives our country the freedom to design and develop the equipment that our armed forces will need in an increasingly competitive and contested world. Our ability as a nation to be a reliable partner and ally depends on us being able to respond on day one to any threats to our national security or that could threaten our allies and friends around the world. We must continue therefore to invest in the Tempest programme, the next generation of combat aircraft, and provide increased funding for the defence budget.
In conclusion, Filton has been at the forefront of the UK aviation industry for well over a century and continues to underpin both our civil and military aerospace industries. As we look to the future, we must be able to maintain our edge in an increasingly competitive and contested world. The Government must reset the economy, and the aerospace industry will respond with the vigour that typified the spirit that motivated the early aeronautical pioneers.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, your office and all the staff who have helped us to keep Parliament open over the last few months. I hope everyone has a welcome break and we return refreshed in September.
I want to start on the issue of the Uyghur. I am incredibly anxious that, as we depart the House and go back to work in our constituencies, the plight of the Uyghur will not be covered as much as in the last few weeks. Most people in the Chamber will have seen the ambassador’s embarrassing interview on the “The Andrew Marr Show” at the weekend. He could not explain or confidently deny the footage he was shown: hundreds and hundreds of men, shaved and blindfolded, being marched on to trains. Who knows where their hair ends up? We know that 13 tonnes of hair have ended up on the market in America. We know that 2 million Uyghur are now enslaved in camps. We know that half a million Uyghur children are no longer with their parents, not because they are not around, but because the Chinese state wishes to institutionalise them and has put their parents into camps.
I have been urging the Foreign Office to work with our American allies to see the evidence they have collected that gives them the confidence to put four particular Chinese officials, who are in charge of the Xinjiang province, within the Magnitsky sanctions. I am asking the Foreign Office to have sight of this evidence and see if it is strong enough to meet our threshold in the UK, so that we can apply those sanctions, too. I also want the Foreign Office to go a bit further. I know the Foreign Secretary is incredibly keen to ensure that the term “genocide” is used appropriately and within the legal remits. We require the UN or international institutions to collect the evidence and apply that legal term. But, unfortunately, China’s power and ability to vote within these institutions means that the UN is a busted flush when it comes to China and the Uyghur. I have therefore asked the Foreign Office to see if it is able to work with like-minded countries, such as Australia, America and the Netherlands, to set up our own independent tribunal to capture the evidence and see if there is enough evidence to put in place an interim report on genocide against the Uyghur. I have been writing a number of articles with a senior female rabbi, who fears she has been reminded of a period in her family’s history in the 1930s and 1940s. I hope therefore that the issue of the Uyghurs will not disappear as we go back to our constituencies.
I turn now to another international issue that touches us here at home but which unfortunately is out of sight and out of mind. Our shops are stocked, our medicine is here and our factories can work because seafarers make sure freight comes our way, but unfortunately 200,000 seafarers are stuck at sea because a number of countries, particularly India and China, will not designate them as key workers. So they have been working for months and years, unable to get off their ships.
Guy Platten, from the International Chamber of Shipping, has done tremendous work with the International Maritime Organisation to put in place international plans to get seafarers off and home and new seafarers on, but certain countries will not abide by these new international norms, which unfortunately means that seafarers are stuck, which is damaging their mental and physical health. At some point, it will become critical to our supply chains, too. The Department for Transport and the Maritime Minister have done a tremendous job, but I am urging the Foreign Office to use every diplomatic power it has to work with countries such as India and China to put in place crew changes to help our unfortunate seafarers.
I turn to home and my wonderful constituency of Wealden. Covid has been incredibly tricky, but so many people have pulled together, particularly East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, which has worked with my care homes, hospitals and doctors surgeries. East Sussex County Council has done a tremendous amount of work, but I must pay a huge amount of respect to Wealden District Council, which has put in place a fantastic schedule to ensure that the money allocated by central Government is given to businesses in my constituency, giving them a lifeline to go forward.
I have too many businesses and individuals to thank, but two particular schools come to mind, as they stayed open during covid to ensure that the children of key workers and those at risk continued to be schooled. Blackboys Church of England Primary School and Groombridge St Thomas Church of England Primary School have kept me updated with occasional tweets, and I am incredibly grateful to all the teachers, all the volunteers and all the fantastic students who have been able to continue with their schooling.
The final point I want to make is that covid has been incredibly difficult for women, children and men in abusive relationships, and summer may not be any easier for them. In East Sussex, we have put together a one-stop portal to provide support and advice for those suffering from domestic violence. I thank Wealden police, and our police and crime commissioner, who has worked with me to set up ad hoc places across the constituency, particularly in supermarkets, so that those who are feeling vulnerable and at threat of domestic violence can reach out and speak to a professional who can help them get the advice they need. If people are struggling, they need to call the police service, but there are available places in refuges across my constituency of Wealden. Women, young people and men must remember that they are not alone and must reach out over the summer period if they need help.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I congratulate her on mentioning the Uyghur Muslims; she is right to do so, and it is a shame that we have not had the opportunity to debate that situation properly in the House. I also join her in thanking the officers and staff of the House for keeping us running and keeping us safe over the recent months.
I want to take this last opportunity before the summer recess to raise two issues in relation to the coronavirus crisis, and to implore the Government to take into account the need for additional support for people and industries that are struggling the most. Although some parts of business and society are starting to reopen, and the Government are starting to wind down support, for some sectors the problem is not going away. In fact, it is no less acute now than it was three months ago, and will probably be the same in three months’ time.
We all welcomed the Government’s support schemes for workers at the start of the crisis; they acted quickly. But there are still 3 million-plus people who, for a variety of reasons, are excluded from the Government’s support schemes and need help. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ExcludedUK, which is now the biggest all-party group in Parliament. I think it has representation from every party in the House. We heard a lot of powerful testimony from people who have worked hard, paid their dues and done the right thing, but who, for different reasons, have fallen through the gaps in the schemes. I particularly remember Julie, who has been a taxpayer for 39 years and gave a very moving testimony. She was caught out while moving between jobs and said something particularly poignant: “We’ve heard about the vouchers for restaurants, but we just want to put food on the table.” There are a number of people in that situation.
I have many constituents who work in the music and event industries—people who had skilled jobs and regular self-employed work. Many of them had bookings and contracts for months and years ahead, could never have predicted that their entire industry would collapse so quickly and for so long, and many are now unable to access support. One of my constituents—a self-employed sound engineer—wrote to me yesterday. He is a top man in a business that has completely collapsed: the live music industry. He is having to consider selling his house because his savings will only sustain his family for so long. I know that the Chancellor is refusing to revisit these schemes, but I would strongly ask him to think again. I note the words of the Minister for Media and Data, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), during the urgent question yesterday. In reference to self-employed freelancers, particularly those at the BBC, he said,
“we continue to look to see what help can be given to them.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 2005.]
I am slightly heartened by that. I hope that the Government are looking at what extra help can be given to those people, because there are things that the Government can do. A letter is on its way to the Chancellor from the APPG on ExcludedUK. It has a number of practical suggestions, many of which have already been recommended by the Treasury Committee’s interim report, and I urge him to look at them with an open mind. There is practical help that we can give to people who are genuinely struggling in the current situation.
Secondly, I want to mention a sector that does not get mentioned a lot in this place. Like the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), I want to talk about specific sectoral support, but not for aviation in my case. As far as I know, I am the only former professional DJ in the House—[Interruption.] Oh, there are others—I’m Spartacus! I want to mention the night-time industries. Although we can see a way back to some kind of activity for theatres, with socially distanced seating, and for galleries and museums, with safe walking routes, there is no return in sight for some industries. The nightclub industry, which I used to work in, is a social industry. It relies on communal activity and faces a particularly difficult future, until we develop a vaccine. As well as adding value to social and cultural life, it is an economic multiplier and brings life to our city centres.
Of course, I welcome the £1.57 billion that the Government have set out for culture, arts and heritage. I understand that the guidance for how that money can be used is due next week. While that guidance is being finalised, my plea to the Government is that they should not forget that nightclubs are an important part of our culture. Electronic dance music is one of the art forms in which this country is truly world class. Let us not define arts and culture too tightly or traditionally, and remember that our music venues and nightclubs are in particular need of support. There is £120 million earmarked for a completely unnecessary Brexit festival in 2022. That money could be spent supporting music and the arts in the face of the pandemic.
I need to finish, so I will do so by thanking the people of Manchester, Withington who have kept us going through this pandemic, including those who have kept our schools open, our NHS workers, our shop workers and key workers, and the people who have run the food banks. I congratulate and thank everybody who has kept us going through this crisis.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Covid-19 has meant severe challenges for so many, but it has also given us the opportunity to witness extraordinary acts of kindness, generosity and heart, and I believe that that has been exemplified across Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. Lockdown gave rise to many heroes across our public services and our NHS, but there are many who will never be, or seek to be, acknowledged. They are right across our communities —people who give but do not feel they have given. They are those who always feel that they should do more, all the while never noticing the vastness of their gifts to others, such is their selfless drive and love for their place, their ain folk.
Those in need in my communities have been helped by Glenurquhart Helping Hands, Fort Augusts covid community group, Voluntary Action in Badenoch and Strathspey, and Nairn residents help. Covid community response groups have helped people in Nethy, Boat, Grantown, Aviemore and across Badenoch and Strathspey and Loch Ness.
Across the city of Inverness, our people gave time and heart to groups that help people. Shelley Gill of the Acts of Kindness group in Inverness provided emergency care packs for those in need, and has vowed to continue that work. MFR Cash for Kids provided more than 8,000 local children with a hot meal, thanks to generous public donations. Its efforts are boosted by volunteers from Inverness Foodstuff, and Our Place also works to provide hot meals. The RoKzKool initiative provided parcels and support. They are the light in dark times that has helped many to steer a safer path through lockdown.
Businesses have also played their part, with efforts made locally to deliver for those unable to get out. They include the Storehouse, Swansons Food and Williamsons Foodservice, along with Inverness Taxis, Graham’s Family Dairy in Nairn, Ashers Bakery, Inverness Auction Centre and many more.
I must also highlight the work of the Highland welfare team, led by Sheila McKandie, providing help and support to those struggling to make ends meet. Along with their colleagues in other departments, they made sure that, through the Scottish Government’s funding for free school meals our weans were fed and offered over 4,000 children’s food vouchers. From the staff collecting refuse, week in, week out, to the social workers working tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure that the most vulnerable children in our communities were safe, staff across Highland Council stepped up and I know that in the highlands we thank them all.
We would have seen people in distress, too, had it not been for Citizens Advice, the Highland Homeless Trust, Women’s Aid and Mikeysline. I also want to mention Macmillan CAB, which along with Marie Curie and MND Scotland supports those diagnosed as terminally ill. They are angels for the affected and their families, but they still have to manage their help alongside the UK Government’s DWP six-month rule.
People are still being asked to prove that they will die within six months in order to access full UK-controlled social security, such as universal credit. I thank the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for introducing her ten-minute rule Bill to support scrapping that six-month rule. Over a year later, with thousands of people having died waiting, the UK Government still delay. My message is, get a move on. End this needless suffering: scrap the six-month rule.
In Highland, we have tried to get back to business. High Life Highland was particularly vulnerable to the effects of covid as it runs the leisure facilities, and yet it stood by its staff and our people, even delivering online tuition. I say to everyone at home who does not have High Life membership but has the means, now is the time to buy one.
We are, of course, open for business now. At Castle Stuart, Nairn, Inverness, Kingussie and across the constituency, our beautiful golf courses are open and, of course, well above par. People can now visit. They can visit for whisky tours, including Dalwhinnie and Tomatin, and they can sample Spey whisky too. Whether it is Jacobite Cruises or Cruise Loch Ness, dolphin tours, Culloden battlefield, Fort George, the Highland Folk Museum, Cawdor Castle, Nairn beach and dunes, the Caledonian canal, the Cairngorm Mountain, the Strathspey steam railway or one of our great places to eat and drink, they will be given a safe highland welcome when visiting.
Yes, people in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey have shown their love for their friends, neighbours and all who live and visit, but they do that while still being ignored by the Westminster Government on paying for universal credit and paying over the odds to have goods delivered. They produce the energy and yet they pay more for it, and they see the UK Government’s hostile environment and a Brexit imposed on them that they did not want or vote for. It is no wonder that local support in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is at an all-time high for us to take control of our own affairs and to become an independent nation.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). He gave us a real tour de force of all that is available in his constituency.
I add my voice to those of Members across this House in thanking our magnificent key workers for all they have done throughout this crisis. Having worked with many of them, I know the sacrifices they have made to support our most vulnerable. I also pay tribute to our charity workers, volunteers, councillors and local groups who have stepped up to provide support to other residents, their neighbours, friends and people across the Scunthorpe constituency.
In particular, I pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Councillor Derek Longcake who, sadly, died from coronavirus. My sympathies are with Derek’s wife Janet, his family and the families of all those who have lost friends and relatives to this dreadful virus.
I want to mention the manner in which people in my constituency have handled themselves over the past months. Scunthorpe has been a real class act, and I am prouder than ever to represent my home town. In particular, it was a pleasure to meet Jude and Tilly in Central Park last week to look at Connor the covid snake, which is a collection of more than 400 stones painted by local people as a permanent reminder and a tribute to the community spirit shown during coronavirus.
In that spirit, I have a couple of matters to bring to the attention of the Government before we rise for the summer. First, which will come as no surprise to Members across the House, is the protection of our steel industry. I started my role here when British Steel was on the brink and, frankly, we would not be making steel today were it not for the support that the Government gave to us in Scunthorpe. Many people have told me over recent months that they will never, ever forget that support. Moving forward, I ask the Government to continue to be a friend to steel and to do all they can to promote the use of our UK steel in national projects. It is absolutely right that we must build, build, build, but to do that, we must make, make, make, and I ask the Government to put that at the forefront of their plans.
There is not a Member of the House who could go even one day without steel. It truly is the backbone of our nation and we owe it to people across this land to make sure that our hospitals, schools and railways, such as HS2, are made from the very best steel that our money can buy—that is, UK steel. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is bang on—UK steel should be at the front of the queue, and I believe that the best way to do that is through the adoption of the steel charter.
I would also like to mention Scunthorpe General Hospital. To be frank, it needed a few quid spending on it when I was born there in 1985, and it is certainly now in need of an upgrade. Despite the tremendous support given to combat coronavirus, the infrastructure at the hospital is under huge pressure. Our local health team and I are working on a proposal, which I hope will be submitted in the coming weeks, and I trust that the Government will give it the urgent consideration that it needs. I thank the Secretary of State for Health for his commitment to visit Scunthorpe Hospital, which was very warmly received.
Finally, I would like to register my thanks to the Secretary of State for Transport for working with me to discuss plans to widen and improve safety on the A15. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister would agree that road safety and infrastructure improvement are a crucial element of the levelling-up agenda. I have seen and been personally involved in the improvements and plans for Scunthorpe and its towns and villages over the last months. We have continued to find ways to progress works, despite the difficulties that we have all faced, from improvements to playgrounds, to measures to mitigate the traffic problems on Berkeley Circle, to working with our local council leaders. I have seen the dedication and commitment of local people as they work to make our area better. Coronavirus may have slowed us down very slightly, and it may have changed the way that we have worked, but I see a real commitment to our area and that commitment is totally undimmed by coronavirus. I look forward to working with the Government to address these matters over the summer.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
During this pandemic, much of the focus has been on public health, the safety of workers and our economy, and rightfully so. This virus has heightened concerns about our health and many are wondering how they will put money on the table. However, in amongst the stress and worry, the virus has shown more than ever the need for joy and entertainment, relaxation and fun, socialisation and connections. For me, this means music.
Music is an incredible thing. It creates happiness and inspires hope. It tells of love and community. It gives voice to protest. At times, it inspires us to dance and sing along. Music puts words and sounds to every emotion and every cause. For many—myself included—music has been such a big part of lockdown, and at a time when people’s mental wellbeing has been under enormous stress and loneliness is widespread, music has often been a common source of support. For those who live alone, it has filled their homes with sound, brought back memories of happier times and kept them going throughout.
I have had huge enjoyment listening to some of my favourite artists performing online gigs, such as KT Tunstall, James and a special concert of Irish musicians in support of the Irish stuck in Australia on temporary visas during this pandemic. On top of that, Durham music service has been teaching songs and how to play instruments to children across the county. I have even signed up to its online ukulele sessions.
Mary Kelly Foy
When I am back in September—let us see how good I am.
Then there are the artists whose music has impacted on so many people during this crisis. In the north-east, we have Sam Fender, whose song “Dead Boys” has been nominated for an Ivor Novello award because of his ability to reach out to young men contemplating suicide, and my friend Nadine Shah, whose music covers the plight of refugees, sexism and racism. Now more than ever, the world needs singers, songwriters and poets to use the medium of song to open our eyes and ears to the reality of the world.
I welcome the investment the Government have announced for the arts, even if it arrived far later than it should have, and too late for some. Now that outdoor music is returning, it is important that local communities support these events—socially distanced, of course. I am looking forward to supporting artists myself, and I cannot wait to watch KT Tunstall at the drive-in gig in Manchester. There will be plenty of live outdoor music in Durham this summer, and it is important that every Member does their bit to support local artists across the country. Although Johnny Marr tried to forbid David Cameron constantly saying that he was a Smiths fan, I would like to remind the remaining members of the Clash that the Prime Minister is a fan of theirs, apparently.
While most music is about enjoyment and entertainment —a pastime that sustains our lives—for many people, it is also their source of income. Whether music is their main salary or a top-up to their existing income, it is vital that, as MPs, we look to support musicians, artists, venues, technicians and roadies in the coming months. Music is nothing without them, for in the time it takes for society gradually to reopen, plenty of people will be wondering whether they can survive as musicians and artists in this environment, and that will be a great loss.
The Government have provided some support to the arts, but it is not enough just to inject some cash and allow unlimited shows to resume. Too many artists will be left without an income. I am not asking the Government to proceed recklessly, as if coronavirus had never happened; I am asking them to do more for individual artists. Musicians and artists do not need blanket support; they need tailored financial help that enables them to survive this crisis. They need to be assured that a local lockdown will not leave them out of pocket and that the lack of physical gigs will not put an end to their careers altogether. They need to know that they will be supported to be innovative. Above all, they need to know that we, as a society, value their cultural contribution.
Without help, we risk losing a generation of artists, and once they are lost, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get them back. The time to act is now. In the words of Tim Booth from James to musicians and poets everywhere:
“Let’s inspire, let’s inflame, create dreams from our pain”.
Music has kept us going during this pandemic. Let us work together to make sure it is still there when this is all over.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). Durham is a beautiful city, in which I had the pleasure of spending three happy and I think reasonably productive years as a student. I am just sorry that I did not sample more of the music on offer outside the Rixy nightclub when I was trying to work hard and get a good degree.
When the novelist Jules Verne wrote about the fictional Phileas Fogg’s journey “Around the World in 80 Days” almost 150 years ago, he must have believed it was the beginning of a golden era of ever-expanding travel. Although this adventurous tale was brought to life by Sir Michael Palin 30 years ago, the mass transportation of humans across the globe came to an abrupt end in the early months of 2020, since when it has been more like “Around the Kitchen in 180 Days”.
After a testy and at times tumultuous 2019, 2020 was meant to be so different—more business as usual. But here we are, over halfway through the year, with our plans thwarted, our hopes suspended and many of our dreams left unfulfilled. The drumbeat of familiarity has also been swept away, only just starting to re-find its rhythm. Whether it is travel, retail, hospitality, education or our families, it has all had far-reaching consequences. Yes, no Tokyo Olympics that were due to start this Friday, and no London marathon for me to run this April, but that all pales into insignificance compared with the economic, social, emotional and mental fallout that covid-19 has created, jabbing at the very heart of humanity, with births, deaths and marriages—our life’s compass points—all directly impacted.
It is the last of those—marriages—that I want briefly to address. With about 220,000 couples exchanging vows every year in England and Wales, and most tying the knot in the summer high season, the best-laid wedding plans of thousands of nearly-newlyweds for what should be the best day of their lives have been dealt the cruellest of blows—and this time no one can blame the British weather. With restrictions of 30 people present at wedding venues still in place, most are postponing or even cancelling their bookings, leaving a huge and potentially permanent dent in the wedding industry. This is an industry worth £10 billion to the UK economy, made up of 137,000 small and medium-sized businesses employing half a million people working as caterers and as specialists in planning, lighting, design, flowers, decoration, clothing, photography, entertainment and many other supply chain jobs.
The Government have been working hard to support the hospitality sector, with pubs and restaurants now open, backed by £30 billion-worth of schemes to help trigger economic activity, including the “eat out to help out” scheme, but for family-run businesses like the Cheshire-based Boutique Hotel Group in Eddisbury, the longer that the limitations on numbers at its three venues—Peckforton Castle, Nunsmere Hall and Inglewood Manor—remain in place, the greater the damage for it and for other local businesses that have contacted me, both financially and reputationally. To illustrate, since the start of lockdown through to the end of August, BHG will lose nearly £6 million in revenue thanks to the loss of 250 weddings, already leading to 25 staff redundancies. Should the status quo continue through September and October, which looks likely, another 124 weddings will go, as will a further £2.2 million in revenue—so the situation is getting beyond desperate. The business rates suspension and the furlough scheme, in particular, have been an absolute lifeline, but they cannot help to prop up the industry indefinitely. In any event, as the managing director of BHG, Christopher Naylor, told me: “Every month that our business is closed, even after taking into account the job retention scheme, it still costs £250,000 just to stand still.”
I therefore implore the Government, as a matter of urgency, to look again at the restrictions still in place for wedding venues like Peckforton Castle, which has ample capacity for 600 guests, or 300 covid-secure guests—a far cry from the limit of 30 still imposed—together with setting out a clear road map to reopening. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will send that message loud and clear on my and my constituents’ behalf to the Business Secretary and the Chancellor—both of whom I have also raised this with—and with the necessary vigour. With other venues such as pubs, museums, cinemas, zoos and sports halls now thankfully open, the justification for keeping wedding venues unusable is increasingly hard to maintain.
In the final chapter of “Around the World in 80 Days”, Fogg’s marriage to Aouda is postponed, not because of covid-19 but because it was on a Sunday—how times have changed. The wedding went ahead the next day, and, Verne reminds us, Fogg won something more important than the money from—spoiler alert—winning his bet; he had won
“a charming woman, who…made him the happiest of men!”
So let us hope that this is not the final chapter for our fantastic wedding industry and that it can bring happiness to many more couples now and in the future.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this end-of-term debate. On behalf of the constituents of Newport East, I would like to put on record our enormous gratitude to the workers who have been there for us and kept services up and running throughout this unprecedented crisis, including our wonderful NHS staff, emergency service workers, retail staff, council workers, school staff and many more. I also want to take this opportunity to thank all the community groups and organisations that have done so much unsung work on the ground to support people, including the two food banks based in Newport East—Raven House Trust and Caldicot—and the Trussell Trust, Jesus Cares and Feed Newport, which do such a wonderful job. I thank those who do not do it for the thanks.
The Aneurin Bevan University health board region, which covers my constituency, was initially a hotspot for the virus and one of the worst affected areas in the UK when the virus took hold. Since then, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of new cases, and it is fantastic that the virus has been so well contained in Gwent. There is no doubt that this is down to the remarkable work of our brilliant NHS staff—a testament to the value of our health service in the region in which it was conceived and the diligence of the public in adhering to the guidance from the Welsh Government over the past few months. On that note, I would like to thank the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, and his Cabinet colleagues for the considered and dignified leadership that has been shown throughout the pandemic. That has made a real difference.
The support provided by the Welsh and UK Governments has been welcome and a lifeline for many. However, it is important to note that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said, many groups have fallen through the cracks of the support provided by the UK Government. I want to mention some of those businesses and individuals in my constituency.
Support for the self-employed has not been comprehensive, and many hard-working individuals have missed out—people like the 68-year-old self-employed handyman who gets more than 50% of his income from his state pension and was not entitled to any support, or the constituent who became self-employed part-way through the year and was counted as having more than 50% of earnings from employment so was excluded from Government support. Those are just some of the 3 million people excluded from help, and we need the Government to address that.
Then there is a whole cohort of people who were not placed on furlough by their employers, including people advised to shield or self-isolate who received just statutory sick pay, agency workers who were laid off and working students who could not claim universal credit. There are also those who have been unable to apply for bounce-back loans despite fitting the eligibility criteria, because banks refused their application for business accounts due to credit ratings.
A number of other businesses have been left in the lurch—in particular, in my constituency, the hospitality supply chain and the exhibition and events industry. We think of all those who have lost their jobs during the pandemic or are now at risk, including constituents of mine at Virgin, Caldicot Tinmasters, the Orb steelworks, which closed on 3 July, EnerSys, Newsquest, British Airways, the Celtic Manor and more. I hope that the Government will look at more ways to support those different groups over the following months. I urge them to look at the report by Chwarae Teg and the Fawcett Society on the devastating impact of coronavirus on women and girls in the UK, highlighted to me by Newport women’s institute. The crisis has made existing inequalities worse, as women are the majority of those in poverty and are more likely to be in low-paid, insecure work. There are very good recommendations in the report, which I ask Ministers to look at.
Along with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), I co-chair the all-party group on steel and metal-related industries, so I would like to say a few words about the steel industry. The Government must look urgently at what further steps they can take to support our industry in both the short and long term. The steel sector has seen a huge drop-off in orders during the pandemic, and many UK steel companies are still waiting for liquidity support some four months since the Government pledged to do everything they could to support businesses. I am glad that the Prime Minister acknowledged this in Prime Minister’s questions, but it is high time that it was backed up with more substantive action.
Given the importance of the sector’s supply chains in trading relationships with mainland Europe, urgent clarity is needed on how steel exports will be treated under the EU steel safeguards in 2021, which draws ever nearer. I know that Trade Ministers are working with UK Steel on that, which is welcome. Steel should and can play a vital role in the economic recovery from the pandemic, and I fully support Community, Unite and GMB unions’ “Britain, we need our steel” campaign, which calls on employers and the Government to create a plan that uses Britain’s steel and invests in our industry and our people. That will require the Government prioritising UK steel in major construction and infrastructure projects such as HS2 and an auto scrappage scheme. We must ensure that we use our steel.
As I have emphasised repeatedly in this place and in meetings with Ministers, the situation at the Orb steelworks, which sadly closed on 3 July, raises a generation-defining question: do we want to be a country that manufactures goods or one that just imports them? We need a comprehensive UK industrial strategy if we are to avoid days like 3 July, supporting a thriving manufacturing base, which will be the foundation of Wales’s and the UK’s future economic success.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this final debate before the House adjourns for the recess. I am very much looking forward to getting out and about in my constituency in a way that has not been allowed in recent months. I want to visit every corner of Mansfield, getting back in touch with residents, and I know that colleagues here will be doing the same.
I want to take this opportunity today to raise a few local priorities and talk about the progress that has been made since I arrived in this place in 2017. I know the Minister will be keen to hear about progress in Mansfield because it is at the heart of the Government’s levelling up agenda. I can see the Minister nodding his assent, which I take as a hugely positive sign.
Coronavirus has been a challenge for the whole country, but particularly for communities such as Mansfield, where the levelling-up agenda is so important because, already, we are falling behind the rest of the UK. One of the challenges going forward will be supercharging that agenda to ensure that we catch up and fill that growing gap. I want to put on the record my thanks to the many people who have worked incredibly hard over recent months to get us through this crisis. I could name individual jobs and roles and everybody who has been involved, but, inevitably, I will be accused of missing somebody out, so, to anyone in my constituency who has played a positive role in recent months, I thank you for everything that you have done.
One of the key priorities in the recovery will be the skills and retraining agenda, which is something that is very close to my heart. I have talked a lot about that subject since I have been in this place. It is something that we have focused on since 2017, when I set up an education working group in my constituency, which brought together local partners—Nottingham Trent University, West Notts College and the local authority—to look at how we could have a positive impact on educational attainment in an area of great disadvantage. We have made some incredible progress, not least in the creation of a formal partnership between West Notts College and Nottingham Trent University, which is where I graduated from, so I am really proud to be able to work with it to do something positive in the constituency. Perhaps the most obvious example of the benefit of that partnership is that, for the first time, we will be delivering, through Nottingham Trent University, degree-level nursing qualifications from the college campus in Mansfield from September. That will give a huge opportunity to local young people, so few of whom have been able to access higher education, to be able to do so from home and to be able to get involved in a hugely rewarding and promising sector. The NHS is our biggest employer locally, so it really is a great opportunity for young people.
I was pleased to be appointed a further education ambassador by the Department for Education, enabling me to feed directly into that skills agenda and into that shift from pushing so many young people towards university to highlighting the benefits of further education, skills and apprenticeships, which will be hugely important in the coming months. I look forward to being closely involved in those discussions.
Sticking with the levelling-up theme, I want to raise the issue of the regeneration of town centres. As I have said in this place a number of times, one of the most striking signs—or perhaps the biggest symbol—of the decline of market towns in particular is seeing those empty shops and the tumbleweed across the centres and it really gets my constituents down. We have some big opportunities in the coming months to invest in that regeneration and to take positive steps to improve our town centres. In the past few weeks, we have been pleased to submit to the future high streets fund. Hopefully, we will secure a positive response from the Government—up to 25 million quid—to transform some elements of the town centre, including a shift towards delivering services from the town centre, where retail is hugely challenging. For instance, I would like to bring council services into the town centre to increase the footfall around our shops. I would like us to have a community hub with a health and skills office in the town centre, as well as more residential buildings. That would help to bring in visitors and increase footfall in the town to help support our shops. We have the chance to do that. We will also submit proposals in the autumn for the town deal. We have been very fortunate to secure this funding from the Government. Again, we will have opportunities to recover some of what we have lost and to bridge the gap. I would like to see us replace the Warsop sports centre, which closed last year, and ensure that, in an area with huge health inequalities, we are delivering the services and facilities that constituents in Warsop most desperately need.
Finally, in the last few minutes before I finish, I want to touch on local government reform, which will be hugely important to us and a local priority over the coming months and years. Following the coronavirus pandemic, local government finances are perhaps more challenged than ever and the system of two-tier authorities in Nottinghamshire seems more unsustainable than ever. In many ways, we have seen the best of local government through the crisis, with so many public servants, as they often do, stepping up to serve during times of great difficulty. This is not a judgment on any member of staff, but we now face the choice of having to raise taxes and cut services to make ends meet or rationalising our system of local government to do something more effective and more efficient, by having one instead of eight chief executives, 70 instead of 350 local councillors, and getting rid of some of the duplication in those services and doing things more effectively. I wanted to get on record my wholehearted support for delivering that for Nottinghamshire and for Mansfield in the next year or two.
With that, I draw my remarks to a close, but let me end by thanking the House of Commons staff for all their work in keeping us safe and keeping things going in recent months, and by wishing colleagues in the House a pleasant summer in their constituencies.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I have dedicated a lot of time to two issues this year and I happen to chair or co-chair an all-party group on both. First, I co-chair the all-party group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who is a good friend. The hair, beauty and product industry is an economic powerhouse, contributing more than £30 billion to the UK economy and employing more than 370,000 people, predominantly women, with more than 49,000 businesses up and down our high streets. Yet in the past few weeks, in this Chamber, it has been totally disrespected and even mocked by the Prime Minister and his male-led covid recovery plan. We have written to the Chancellor outlining the support that this industry needs if it is to survive post-covid. It has been shut for longer than any other industry and it has not received the same level of financial support as other sectors. As it starts to reopen, it needs VAT reduced to 5%, as has happened for the hospitality and leisure sectors. These businesses need extended business premises eviction protection and more favourable repayment plans for any loans they have been forced to take out to help them survive this unprecedented period. It has been a privilege of both co-chairs to use our voices to stand up for this female-led industry, and we will continue to do so until the patronising sniggering stops, and the beauty and wellbeing sector receives the recognition and respect it deserves.
The other area I wish to discuss is gambling. As the chair of the all-party group on gambling-related harm, I have focused on this issue for a long time. Our recent report on online gambling harms calls for an urgent review of the Gambling Act 2005, something that was in the Government’s election manifesto. Our report was backed by a Lords report, a Public Accounts Committee report and a National Audit Office report, where it has been recognised that there are systematic failings in both this industry and its regulator. Online gambling has grown exponentially, and all too often it is a toxic and dangerous environment. The 15-year-old analogue legislation is not for the 2020 digital era. I constantly hear stories of harm, devastation, demoralisation, destitution and, at its very worst, suicide as the consequences of a gambling addiction.
Gambling disorder does not discriminate; its victims will be male, female, young, old and even children. From having gambling firms’ logos on football shirts to having no stake limits on online platforms, from 16-year-olds being able to legally deposit hundreds of pounds on the national lottery every week to little children being exposed to loot boxes, and to television and social media advertising, the gambling industry has become the new tobacco industry. There was a time when nobody wanted to believe that smoking was dangerous, and the gambling industry would have us believe that nobody is harmed from gambling, but we know differently. Some 1.4 million people, 55,000 of whom are children, struggle with an addiction to gambling, and we need to take action to protect them from harm. The way to do that is to review the legislation, with a view to rewriting the Gambling Act to take into account how the world and technology has changed since 2005.
Finally, tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the children’s funeral fund in England. Approximately 6,500 babies and children pass away before their 18th birthday, and almost 3,000 families have used the fund since its inception, which means that over 50% of bereaved parents are not making use of it. Some may choose not to, which is entirely understandable, but I am concerned that many parents may not be aware of it. Now, a year on, would be a good time for the Government to re-publicise the Children’s Funeral Fund, to raise awareness of its existence and to ensure that my son’s legacy—Martin’s fund—reaches every grieving parent who needs that support in their darkest hour.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has made a powerful contribution to the debate. Like many colleagues, I should like to put on record my thanks to all the key workers who have done so much for all our constituencies up and down the country in recent weeks—not just those we immediately think of such as health and care workers, but many people who have kept our vital services going.
I should like to follow up a number of points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). She referred to British Steel at Scunthorpe, and many of my constituents work there and in the supply chain. It is an example of our more beneficial, shall we say, ties with China, given the investment in the Scunthorpe works. It is an important employer in the area, and it would be a devastating loss. She referred to Scunthorpe Hospital, which serves my constituency too, and I gladly support her calls for investment in it, not forgetting the Diana Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby, which serves my constituency as well and is in need of further investment.
Like all coastal towns, particularly seaside resorts, Cleethorpes has suffered as a result of the health crisis. I appeal to Government to recognise that there are particular problems for our coastal communities, which need ongoing support, especially in relation to the hospitality sector. My constituency does not just contain Cleethorpes which, as I have said many times, is the premier resort of the east coast. It is a very industrial area, as it contains the largest port complex in the UK at Immingham and Grimsby. I have two oil refineries, power stations and much more. The sector is absolutely vital in providing for the nation as a whole and it at the forefront of the applications for free-port status. I am sure that the Minister will urge his colleagues who will make that decision to support the bid from the Humber ports.
I want to mention, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), the town deal. The Greater Grimsby town deal was the first of its kind to be nominated by the Government, some three years ago, which shows how important the partnership between the public and private sectors is if we are to ensure almost the continued existence of our town centres. They are very much under pressure at the moment and will certainly be in need of considerable support from both the public and private sectors. Public money can start the ball rolling and, hopefully, attract some key business investment as the shape of our town centres changes considerably over the coming years.
I wish briefly to mention the BBC. Yesterday, I ventured to quote the view of the director-general, who wrote to the Blue Collar Conservatives group and said that the BBC
“will continue to deliver new programmes that represent and reflect modern Britain and the voices of the whole of the UK.”
The BBC certainly does not represent the views of the people of Cleethorpes, and that is probably true of many industrial, and now predominantly Conservative, towns across the north of England. If we are to continue to fund the BBC through the licence fee—on balance, I think that will probably carry on in some modified way for the foreseeable future—it needs to take note of people’s views.
We all have our regulars who contact us to complain about the BBC and its news coverage and so on—often with justification—but that contact has grown considerably in recent times. Presenters can have a rather superior tone, as was particularly true during the Brexit debate, when we saw them more or less saying, “How could you possibly support leaving the EU?” I remind the BBC that 70% of my constituents did in fact vote to leave. The majority of them would be in the elderly group—they would be predominant in that 70%—and although they value the BBC, they do not value the direction in which it is currently moving.
I urge the new director-general to come along to Cleethorpes; he is very welcome and I would happily arrange a socially distanced forum for him to debate the issues with local people. The message should go out to our national broadcaster that it needs friends, and critical friends, particularly in this place.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak today. I have been hugely impressed by the efforts that have been made to ensure that the House has functioned as normally as possible in these unprecedented times. I would have liked to say a little more about that but, as I have a whole smorgasbord of matters to raise before the adjournment, I do not think I will have time to do so, so I just want to put on the record my thanks to the House staff for keeping the show on the road and, indeed, to everyone in the country who has joined in the fight against coronavirus.
As we come out of lockdown, the immediate issue facing countries is how we best protect the parts of the economy that are not going to recover as quickly as other parts. It has been a tough time for businesses, as it has been for everyone. The support that has been there so far has been invaluable, but we cannot afford to stop it now. What is the alternative? Do we allow companies that have traded successfully for many years and been responsible for thousands of well-paid, permanent, high-skilled jobs to go under because of a short-term disruption that has impacted on everyone?
Some of the biggest employers in my constituency, such Vauxhall and Airbus, fit that description. They should play a huge role in the future prosperity of my area, but currently they have uncertainty. The aerospace sector is strategically vital in the UK economy: it supports thousands of jobs directly and more than 100,000 more in the supply chain. We cannot afford to lose it. We are about to lose 1,400 jobs at Broughton, which will have a devastating effect on the economy of the whole of north Wales and the north-west. We know that once those jobs go, they are not easily replaced.
Thankfully, production at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port is going to start again next month, but it seems that we are behind other plants in Europe that have already restarted production, often with state assistance. Coupled with the continued absence of a decision on the next model for the plant, that leaves us all fearing for the future. It is not too late: we can act and do something to save these jobs—and with them the entire future of motor manufacturing in the town.
To stimulate the market, we need a consumer-support package that is open to all technologies and has additional environmental incentives. It is no exaggeration to say that the previous Labour Government’s car-scrappage scheme made all the difference to Ellesmere Port and many other parts of the automotive sector. We need a modern equivalent of that, or we risk losing the many great strides that we have made in the automotive sector in the past decade. We also need the job retention scheme to continue, in order to meet the automotive sector’s needs, because it will not come out of this crisis as quickly as other sectors. We need support soon, or we risk losing the car industry altogether. The proud history of motor manufacturing in my town could be lost for good.
I want to say a few words now on leasehold reform. As co-chair of the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform, it has been my pleasure to work with some great campaigning individuals. I will not name them except for one today: Louie Burns, who sadly passed away last month. He was a rare beast—a lawyer with conscience. I say that as someone who considered himself such a person before entering this place. He was the best of us. He had a formidable intellect and a passion for justice that always saw him stick up for the leaseholder, so rest in peace, Louie.
I am sure Louie would have been pleased to see yesterday’s report from the Law Commission on reforming leasehold, which has been long awaited and at last recognises the fundamental unfairness and problems with the system. The challenge now is for the Government to ensure those recommendations are implemented swiftly and without being watered down by the powerful lobby who wish to protect freeholders’ interests. I really hope that time is now up for the unfair, exploitative and outdated system of ownership that is leasehold.
Since I came to this place, I have consistently talked about the importance of the high street; other Members have talked about that today. Many people want to have pride in their local town. They want to see it thriving and they want an end to the drift we have seen in recent years away from our high streets and our town centres. That decline has sadly been accelerated by coronavirus. I was pleased, therefore, when the Government announced last year the towns fund and the high streets fund, because I thought that Ellesmere Port would be one of those places likely to benefit from that initiative. I was therefore disappointed when we lost out on those funds, because we had been told we were well placed, but that disappointment turned to anger when I saw the list of towns that were successful.
I have nothing against those towns, but I saw a pattern between what looked like marginal and target Conservative seats and successful bids, so I asked the National Audit Office whether it could look into this. Its report yesterday confirmed my suspicions that the entire process was tainted by what I can only describe as a blatant subversion of the rules for party political purposes. Criteria were applied by civil servants and towns were ranked high, medium and low priority. All the constituencies that contained a low-priority town that were selected by Ministers were Tory target seats at the general election last year. Some 84% of the towns chosen by Ministers that were ranked medium priority were also Tory target seats last year, so the pattern is clear and some of the justifications given by Ministers for favouring lower-ranking towns over those with greater need are frankly embarrassing.
Take Cheadle, ranked 534th out of the 541 towns considered—almost the lowest priority of the lot, yet somehow it was chosen. This is what the report said:
“Cheadle is strategically located between Stockport and Manchester Airport, with strong motorway links to relevant job opportunities and a new link dual carriageway. The area is part of Stockport Borough Council, which is looking to set up a Mayoral Development Corporation.”
I have no beef with Cheadle, but that reasoning is an absolute nonsense. Most towns are strategically located between other places. Actually, what is the logic of having a fund to boost town centres if one of the reasons a town is chosen is that it has good transport links to go elsewhere?
This is an absolute disgrace and we see right through it. We will not forget this manipulation and I will not stop fighting for support for my town. This kind of gerrymandering might have helped the Government win the general election, but in the long run it will do them damage, because people will see it for what it is—a squalid fix from a Government who are supposed to govern for everyone, not just the areas from which they won support.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I will not say it is a pleasure, but it is interesting to follow the eclectic comments of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), whose speech I would summarise as sour grapes.
That is not the tone in which I wanted to make my remarks this afternoon. I want to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the other Deputy Speakers, Mr Speaker and the whole House staff for the amazing way in which they have allowed us to come back here since the end of April, in this hybrid fashion, to hold the Government to account through this difficult period for the country.
I also want to thank everyone in my local area—in West Worcestershire and across Worcestershire—who has worked tirelessly to support the whole community and everyone who has observed the guidelines in such a way that I now have real hope that we have conquered this public health challenge. I am particularly grateful to my own casework team, who have had to deal with quite unprecedented volumes of work in service to the community. I want to put those thanks on record to them now.
As chair of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I want to update colleagues on what the IPU has been up to. I thank the staff of the IPU for having worked relentlessly right through this crisis, working to maintain those links between 179 Parliaments and 46,000 parliamentarians, at a time when it could not have been more important to maintain those links. As Back Benchers, all of us are part of the IPU, and we have taken the view as an executive that we want to continue with virtual links between Parliaments. We have had virtual bilaterals with Sweden, Norway, Italy and Colombia. I thank Mr Speaker for agreeing to take part in the virtual Speakers’ conference that will happen during August. I was also delighted to hear today that the president of the IPU has invited Professor Sarah Gilbert of Oxford University to be the keynote speaker, and that she has agreed to that invitation. That is a wonderful opportunity to showcase the fantastic work they are doing at my alma mater.
I also want to thank everyone who has taken part in all these virtual events. As the House knows, we have a particular focus on the non-Commonwealth countries, and we have found the sessions to be so informative in terms of the links between different Parliaments and different countries and how they have taken different approaches to the outbreak and at different times. We have had some very good information sharing and learning from each other.
We have also been able to focus on many of the other priorities of the BGIPU. On media freedom, we had a John Smith Trust session with graduates from Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine. We were able to focus an event on refugees. We have been able to liaise with UK ambassadors and high commissioners from across Africa and from some of the most conflict-afflicted parts of Africa, such as Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, as well as with the International Committee of the Red Cross. We have been able to hold seminars jointly with the BBC. There was one on Chechnya and LGBT issues.
We were able to hold a roundtable last week with the ambassador from the Republic of Korea. I think all colleagues are aware that Korea has been able to apply its experience from the outbreak earlier in the 2000s to the current crisis, and we learned an enormous amount from that session. All those events are of course on the website.
I should update colleagues on the fact that over the course of the next few months, we have to make a decision as a Parliament as to who we want to back to succeed to the presidency of the IPU, because the current president, Gabriela Cuevas Barron, comes to the end of her term in October. There will be a meeting in November to decide the next president. At the moment, only two people have so far shown their candidacy—one from Portugal and one from Pakistan. We as the BGIPU are looking for a few more candidates to show their hand. We want to see what the whole field looks like before we decide who we want to back to take on the important role of the presidency.
I encourage all colleagues to get involved and take part in the wide range of interesting meetings. There has never been a more important time for these 46,000 parliamentarians from 179 countries to come together and share their experiences and how they have been holding their Governments to account. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to update colleagues.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and hear a detailed update on the work of the IPU. As we head back to our constituencies this evening, we will reflect no doubt on an extremely challenging period for our country and our constituencies. I put on record my thanks and admiration for the key workers and community groups in my constituency that have pulled together in an incredibly impressive way to get us through these difficult times.
I want to focus today on an area where I feel the Government have failed and are letting our country down, and that is specifically around the manufacturing sector. We know that a recovery for our manufacturing sector will be crucial for the post-pandemic economy that we wish to build. I will focus on the backbone of our manufacturing sector, which is the steel industry.
There are 4,000 highly skilled and relatively well-paid jobs at the Port Talbot steelworks in my Aberavon constituency, but those people have been badly let down. For a decade, successive Conservative Governments seem to see steelmaking as metal bashing. They seem to see it as a sunset industry. It is not. It is at the cutting edge of so many of the important manufacturing innovations for both our past and our future. Steel is also central to the homes we live in, the cars we drive and the offices we work in. It is crucial to Britain’s defence, automotive and infrastructure sectors. Steel is also crucial for the green agenda. Wind turbines are based on steel, as are many other green technologies, yet we have seen very little in terms of creating a supportive policy environment for the steel industry.
We need fairer industrial energy prices. Why is it that our energy prices are 80% higher than those of our competitors in France and 60% higher than in Germany? We need an integrated Government procurement strategy, so that British steel is actually at the heart of infrastructure projects. We need to tackle extortionate big business rates that punish investment in new plant and machinery. We need the Government to be much, much quicker to provide urgent cash flow support to an industry that is in crisis because of the coronavirus. We need bespoke loan support. We need it urgently for the industry. Where is it and why has it taken so long? Every day that goes by takes the steel industry deeper into this crisis.
I also want to say a word about why this is so important to our sovereign capability and our national security. Covid-19 has shown the essential nature of having national supply chains that we can rely on. The UK has 229 product lines that are strategically dependent on China, of which 57 relate to our critical national infrastructure. We can no longer be too reliant on economies such as China’s and on regimes where we have seen their disregard for the international rule of law.
We also need to recognise that steel is a driver of jobs and employment. We talk about “build, build, build” but we must also say, “jobs, jobs, jobs.” We know that nationwide, the UK steel industry employs 32,000 people and contributes £3.2 billion to mitigating our balance of trade deficit. It contributes £5.5 billion to the economy directly and through supply chains. Let us think about the cost of doing nothing. If, God forbid, the steel industry, tragically, were to be allowed to fall over by the Government, imagine the cost of all the relatively well-paid steelworkers who would be put on to the social security system. Look at the capital expenditure cost of closing down our steelworks and those iconic blast furnaces. It would cost the taxpayer billions. It is the definition of a false economy, and that is why the Government must act and act now.
That is why I am supporting the amazing new union-led campaign, “Britain, We Need Our Steel”. I congratulate Community union, the GMB and Unite on the campaign and I urge Members across the House to sign up and support it. The unions must be properly consulted. It was very disappointing to read in the Sunday newspapers that apparently discussions are happening about transitioning away from a blast furnace-based model of steelmaking. It is simply not acceptable to be floating those kinds of plans, having them leaked out into the press without proper consultation with a trade union—by the way, a trade union movement that has been the model of constructive engagement and modern, 21st century trade union working. That needs to stop. We need proper consultation. We need proper Government support and we need to see it now.
We need a modern manufacturing renaissance in this country. We will not have a healthy post-pandemic economy unless we have a strong and healthy post-pandemic steel industry. This is a great and proud country. We are strong, modern, diverse and industrial. Our future relies on the steel we make here in the UK: from rail to electric cars, from wind turbines to hospital beds, from pots and pans to vans, to baked bean cans. The message today has to be clear: we need this urgently and we need it now. Britain, we need our steel.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). Like him, I want to thank all those in my constituency who have worked so hard during the period of lockdown: our NHS staff, carers, key workers, volunteers and community groups. I particularly want to thank NHS staff on both sides of the border who dealt with the unwelcome recent spike in coronavirus cases in the Gretna and Annan areas and brought that outbreak under control.
I want to use this opportunity to highlight a concern that I have that one unintended consequence of covid might be a limiting of the ability to use cash and, in the wider context, of access to cash, about which I have spoken on a number of occasions in this House. I greatly welcome the fact that the Government intend to legislate on access to cash, and I hope that, in what I am sure will be his very eloquent closing remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), in a rare appearance at the Dispatch Box, will be able to tell us when the Government intend to bring forward that legislation. I now have a further serious concern, however: even if we resolve the ability to access cash, will people be able to use it, given the number of outlets that are now saying that they will not take cash?
The issues around access are well-rehearsed in many ways. We have had the closure of bank branches and cash machines converting from being free to having a charge. Until I became involved in this issue, I did not realise that most cash withdrawal transactions are for small sums of £10 or £20; a £3 charge in relation to a withdrawal of that amount is a hugely disproportionate mark-up. There are also concerns about those machines, either free or otherwise, disappearing, for example, in Lochmaben in my constituency, where constituents have been alarmed about a planning application to remove a cash machine that is vital to the community. There are also complicated arguments around interchange rates, on which the banks and cash machine providers operate. Many of the providers are now looking for a regional interchange rate, so that the rates are different depending on where the machine is and the amount of use and its priority in the community.
I am sure that those important issues will be debated when the access to cash legislation comes forward, along with the very welcome community access to cash pilot. I was pleased to be able to speak to Natalie Ceeney, chair of the board that is overseeing that pilot. The pilot is looking at not just direct access but one of the other big issues that most of us face in our constituencies, of community and voluntary groups in particular who raise money and then need to deposit cash, as do lots of small businesses. These organisations and businesspeople are finding it increasingly difficult to deposit that cash, so in the wider context of the access to cash argument, a deposit scheme must be available.
Access to cash is about being able not just to get that cash but to spend it. In a previous Parliament, I introduced a Bill to guarantee that Scottish bank notes would be accepted here in England and the other parts of the United Kingdom, and the issue I faced was not about legal tender, and the arguments people make about that, but the fact that retailers and service providers can refuse any form of payment and increasingly are refusing cash payment. A myth has developed that somehow cash is dirty and can spread coronavirus, which is completely untrue; the Minister could help on that. I would like to hear the Government make that much clearer.
As the Bank for International Settlements reported in April, the likelihood of transmitting covid-19
“via banknotes is low when compared with…credit card terminals or PIN pads.”
We must be clear that cash is safe and, as with any contact, safer after people wash their hands and take other measures. Cash is not a spreader of coronavirus.
We do not want to see a back-door move to a so-called cashless society. Recent reports indicate that 8 million of our fellow citizens could not cope in a cashless or cash sparse society, so let us not end up there without thinking it through. Let us see the Government bring forward their access to cash legislation, but let us also make sure that people can use that cash.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The most difficult times often demonstrate the power of people coming together. The creation of the Compassionate Community Hub in Bath had an incredible response, with thousands of Bathonians signing up to help vulnerable people in our community. I recognise the fantastic work of 3SG, Virgin Care and Bath and North East Somerset Council in getting it up and running. I give my heartfelt thanks to all those who have given their time to help.
Some residents have felt isolated and alone; some face financial worries or housing insecurity. Compared with the same time last year, Bath citizens advice bureau has reported a 34% increase in employment issues and a 200% increase in issues around utilities and communication. Even something as simple as the closure of our local skate park due to lockdown meant that a coping mechanism was no longer available.
All those things can contribute to worsening mental health. Analysis suggests that mental health has worsened substantially as a result of the pandemic and 43% of psychiatrists have seen an increase in emergency and urgent cases. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that there will be a “tsunami of referrals”. The Centre for Mental Health forecasts that half a million more people will experience mental health difficulty this year. If there is a second wave, the effects could be even greater.
It is not a new problem. There was a mental health crisis in the UK long before the pandemic, and it will become even clearer that the system is not working. The Government must take mental health seriously. Unless plans are put in place to meet the extra demand, mental health services will not be able to cope.
I urge the Government to work closely with the voluntary sector, which is calling for the creation of a national mental health renewal plan. We can learn from the expertise of those organisations, which have been invaluable throughout the pandemic. Progress towards parity of esteem for mental health will need funding. Of course that means for the NHS, but social care, local authorities, welfare and community services will all need proper funding too.
Mental health cannot be viewed in isolation. It needs to be placed at the heart of society in schools, workplaces and our communities. In Bath, local organisations have stopped many of our residents falling through the gaps. Bath Mind has had contact with more than 500 people across Bath and North East Somerset who were not known to it prior to the lockdown. Developing Health & Independence has worked with more 2,500 people on GP shielding lists. Many were not previously aware of how to access help. Without those organisations ensuring prevention and early intervention, the cost to the statutory sector would be enormous.
Certain groups have disproportionately felt the impact of covid-19 on their mental health. A study has found that levels of anxiety and depression remain high, even as restrictions ease, among low-income households, people with already diagnosed mental ill health and young people.
Research from the Royal Society for Public Health suggests that young people’s mental health has suffered most as a result of the pandemic. We know that people under 25 are much more likely to work in sectors that have been closed. DHI has also shared concerns about an increase in family conflict, being witness to parental domestic violence, and exploitation through county lines. A national young persons’ lockdown exit strategy is needed as part of lockdown easing. We cannot allow young people to be further disadvantaged, and must prevent this crisis from developing into a mental health pandemic. Mental health issues do not discriminate. Local authorities must have the resources to support our communities. Warm words are not enough. I urge the Government to act now.
As I have a bit of time left, let me say that we have heard many people in the House speak powerfully in support of their communities. There could not be a bigger fan of my city of Bath than I. I echo the sentiments of a lot of colleagues across the House, in that I shall do my utmost to ensure that Bath and my constituents get through this crisis as safely as possible.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), especially her words about mental health. I could not agree more. We should treat mental health and physical health with parity, and do what we can to help people in such deep crisis, especially during this time.
This sitting has been an eventful one. Our nation has been battling the coronavirus, and the Government’s response has brought in strong and effective measures to open up the economy, protect people’s livelihoods and keep us safe. As we look ahead to the forthcoming adjournment and the next sitting, however, I wish to raise matters local to Rother Valley that require the House’s attention.
The coronavirus pandemic has caused much suffering and pain in my constituency, as it has in all four countries of the United Kingdom, yet in this darkest of places I have been privileged to witness community spirit in Rother Valley blossom and flourish. The selflessness of my constituents has been truly extraordinary, ranging from schoolchildren making PPE to volunteers doing food parcels for more people. As a result, I instituted the Rother Valley hero awards to recognise some of the amazing work that has been done in the constituency.
In the wake of the pandemic, it is critical that we relaunch Rother Valley’s economy. I am therefore supporting the Rotherham Advertiser’s “Restarting Rotherham” campaign to raise awareness that Rother Valley is open for business. This post-coronavirus relaunch of the economy ties in perfectly with my electoral pledge to bring lots of high-quality, skilled jobs to the area, and chimes with the Government’s levelling up of our infrastructure and facilities.
We already have many good businesses in Rother Valley, including Swallow GB in Thurcroft, which produces high-quality, award-winning sheds and greenhouses. As well as greenhouses, I want Rother Valley to be known for the green economy, and am particularly excited by the prospect of hydrogen—which the House knows I have been advocating for—and the potential for a hydrogen plant to be based in Orgreave or Thurcroft in Rother Valley. These new green jobs could kick-start our economy and allow us to build back better for the whole country, and I very much believe that former industrial areas such as Rother Valley should be at the heart of our green recovery.
Infrastructure-wise, I have been vocal in my bid to link up Rother Valley’s different towns and villages, which are appallingly served by public transport at present. I have been championing the reopening of the old South Yorkshire Joint Railway line, which would service Anston, Dinnington, Laughton, and Maltby.
I am also unwavering in my support for new bus routes and more frequent services across the constituency, as the buses in Rother Valley are truly woeful. It is a disgraceful situation when a short journey that can take 15 or 20 mins in a car takes up to an hour and a quarter on public transport and that bus arrives only once an hour. It is simply not good enough. In response, I have convened the Rother Valley transport taskforce as a forum for discussing solutions and progress. I intend for it to meet once the pandemic is over, and encourage all residents of Rother Valley to get involved so that we can work out how to restart Rotherham, restart Rother Valley and get better transport services for our communities.
I remain steadfast in my opposition to hurtful projects such as HS2, which will bring untold damage and no benefits to the communities of Rother Valley. Similarly, I oppose fracking. It is a retrograde step, and not what we want for our future green economy to rebuild jobs.
It is important for us in this House to remember that constituencies such as Rother Valley are made up of individual towns and villages that breathe life into the greater whole. We are full of wonderful community activities such as the Kiveton and Wales annual scarecrow festival, which is on its way. I look forward to seeing many different scarecrows across the constituency over the recess, and I encourage everyone to visit them for a good day out. On top of that, Swallownest FC staged a charity walk for the mental health charity Mind, which I have been privileged to take part in, and that goes back to the comments from the hon. Member for Bath about how important mental health is. I have been working with others to protect the hub of our community for future generations, such as the mineworkers’ recreation ground in Maltby, which is also the home of Maltby Main FC. It is important that our sports fields are protected, because once they are gone, they are gone. We need to protect and nurture them. That is why I am also supporting Dinnington Town football club’s efforts to raise funds to install a 3G pitch for the benefit of the town and local sports clubs.
As the House will know, one of my priorities is to rejuvenate the high street in Dinnington by reopening the police station, saving our local post office, clamping down on local crime and antisocial behaviour, and repurposing Dinnington College as a community centre. I have chosen to have my constituency office on that high street to show my support and try to get our high streets back to where they should be. I am also co-ordinating with local groups such as those in Harthill and Woodsetts to ensure that fracking never blights our beautiful Rother Valley.
We must also look forward. For instance, in Whiston we must prepare for winter flooding by working with the Environment Agency to build robust flood defences in the area, thereby protecting our homes, and in Kiveton Park there is an opportunity for us to regenerate our beautiful stretch of the Chesterfield canal. During the pandemic, this Government have kept people in Rother Valley safe and protected our livelihoods. Now, there is lots of work to be done. We must turn our heads towards our recovery and achieving real and meaningful transformation for Rother Valley. We must deliver on levelling up for Rother Valley and the north.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to follow Members’ impassioned speeches about their communities and to hear a bit more about Rother Valley just now.
I was reading today’s Daily Telegraph, which is not something that I do regularly, but it is good to know what the enemy think. The front page reported that the American Government and Pompeo believe that the Chinese are responsible for thousands of deaths in this country. Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister challenge those assertions? The report did not suggest that they had. I have heard no challenge of those assertions. I am no fan of the Chinese authorities. On my first delegation to China in 2006, I raised, with colleagues from the Socialist International who were there, issues of human rights in China. My view is that the human rights situation in China has gone downhill from there, not improved, but for such conspiracy theories not to be challenged by our Government is extremely dangerous.
In the middle pages of The Daily Telegraph, another article says that racist hate crimes against Chinese and south Asian people in this country have increased by 61% so far this year. If Members cannot see the link, I implore them to look again, because there is a clear link between misinformation about China and racist attacks on Chinese people in this country. We must not play the game of China, of misinformation, lies and abuses of human rights. We must win the global battle of ideas and for the future world we want based on our values of truth, justice, democracy and human rights.
That is why many of my constituents were deeply concerned when the Royal Mail delivered through their doors the racist rag The Epoch Times. It is a disgusting magazine that the Royal Mail has voluntarily decided to deliver, not through its universal service but on a private contract. The Royal Mail is entitled to refuse delivery if it brings the service into disrepute, is dangerous, is harmful or is likely to harm or upset the receiver. I will tell the House what this newspaper says. It says:
“there were several cases of people recovering from the CCP pneumonia”—
it does not call it covid—
“miraculously after they condemned the CCP”.
It says, “If you condemn the CCP and China, you will recover from the CCP pneumonia.” These are dangerous lies because they not only promote racism, but suggest to people that they can be cured, or can avoid getting coronavirus if they are racist. Who is the funder of this magazine, which has gone to every constituent in my constituency and in numerous other constituencies around this country? The Epoch Times is the biggest funder of online advertising for the Trump campaign in the election later this year. There is a direct link to the US and the racism that is peddled in our streets, and it is incumbent on our Government to stand up to it. I have written to the Royal Mail, which gave a very weak response initially. It has now responded more seriously and I hope that we will investigate this further because it is not acceptable for people to receive this in their homes.
The reality is, however, that many people do not live in permanent homes; they live in temporary, rented accommodation and they do not know when the doorbell will ring and it will be their landlord asking for them to be kicked out under a section 8 or section 21 notice. This Government have suggested that they wish to abolish those no-fault evictions, but we are still waiting for that law to be enforced. They told renters in my constituency and across the country that they would not have to worry about having to leave their home because of arrears resulting from coronavirus, but we heard today, as a result of the excellent urgent question from the shadow Housing Secretary, that the Government wish landlords to take covid into account but will do nothing to require them to do that and will not suspend section 8s. Of course, section 8s do not allow the courts to use their judgment; they require the courts to evict, with no questions asked, where someone is in two months of arrears. That section needs to be abolished, as do the no-fault evictions, and we would then have a much better position for renters in our communities, particularly in Brighton.
Let me finish by saying that Brighton is a seaside holiday resort, all along the coast, including Peacehaven and Saltdean in my constituency. It welcomes all of you during the summer. Come and enjoy our lovely lido and our lovely beach, and our parks. I hope to see you there.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is an honour and pleasure to follow the terrific speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle).
I thank the people of Warwick and Leamington for their endurance, self-sacrifice and adherence to the guidelines these past few months. They managed to resist the temptation to go to Barnard Castle, and for good reason, because of course we have the wondrous Warwick castle. I recognise that we do not have a beach at Warwick castle, although it banks the fine River Avon. It is a very attractive place in its own right.
More seriously, I wish to express my thanks, and those of all the residents of Warwick and Leamington, to all our frontline workers. In the past few months, we have seen rainbows appearing in windows in every street in the constituency, thanking our frontline workers. I thank those at Warwick Hospital and at the Heathcote rehab hospital, and all in our health and emergency services, our care homes and our schools. I also thank our key workers across our food and agricultural sector.
I particularly thank our voluntary and charitable organisations, such as Warwick district food bank, which have done such a brilliant job. I have seen at first hand the work they have done. They are too numerous to mention their names individually. I also thank the Warwick and Leamington mutual aid group for what it has been doing, as well as restaurants, cafés, chefs and butchers, who have stood up, got together, got organised and supplied meals. They have been very much in the background, but they have done such a terrific job. I also wish to place on record my thanks to council officers for the speed with which they have got the business grants out and expedited the support on business rates. Without that, many businesses could have gone under so quickly.
However, having commended many of the local authority officers for what they have done for businesses and in helping with shielding, I have concerns about the failure of some and a lack of leadership in respect of recognising the threat of the pandemic in our care homes. While we had weekly meetings as representatives across Warwickshire, nowhere on the agenda was any mention of social care, until I asked for it to be raised. We had things like green waste on the agenda, but not care homes. That just underlines how there was an absolute blindness to this issue that was clearly going to be a huge problem. There have been 65,000 excess deaths, as we know, with 400 in Warwickshire. We cannot wait for a Government inquiry, whenever that may be: we need an interim urgent inquiry to take place. I certainly want to see one in Warwickshire and I will be calling for one.
Let me turn to the economy, starting with our high streets. I welcome the support that the Government are talking about, but we must—I am calling on residents—back our local businesses, because they provide the jobs, the prosperity, and of course such great services. However, we also need infrastructure. I very much hope that the Government will find the money to support us in our Leamington Spa station development to create a proper 21st-century transport hub. I do appreciate the work that the Government did with the furlough scheme, but Australia has just announced, as we have seen elsewhere, that it is going to extend its furlough scheme by another six months. That is what we need, because we will face a huge problem with unemployment going into the autumn. I want to place on record my concern for those I have been campaigning for who have been excluded by all the other support policies that the Government have put in place—the 3 million we have heard about.
I turn to the need for sectoral support. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), mentioned the tragedy of the closure of the Orb steelworks. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) talked about the importance of steel and the need for these products, which are a critical part of our manufacturing sector. In particular, I will always speak about the preciousness of our automotive sector and the supply chain. Without those plants, we will not have these products manufactured in the UK. I welcomed the Chancellor’s statement, but it was selective in supporting hospitality and construction, yet in the west midlands we have 58,000 people who work in the automotive sector. That is why we need sectoral deals. We must have, as we did in 2009, support for scrappage schemes and other support given to different sectors. This is being done in other countries. If we do not restore these businesses and these markets, then investment will be going to other countries, because that is what the international businesses will do. No other sector faces the same headwinds that our automotive sector does, with changes in emissions regulations and, of course, the significant impact that there will be from changes in our trading relationship with Europe.
On the need to address climate change, I very much hope that in the autumn we will see some mention of industrial strategy from the Chancellor, who, surprisingly, has not talked about 11 March and did not again recently. With the challenge of addressing climate change we need economic change, and that is a huge opportunity. As we have heard, we need to reduce the cost of our energy. We should have the cheapest energy in Europe because of the offer of wind, but we do not.
Finally, may I ask that we urgently bring back Westminster Hall debates? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) about the real need for those sorts of local debates. I thank all the staff here and the security teams for what they have given us.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). It will come as no surprise to him that there is a lot that divides us politically, but we can absolutely agree that Warwick castle, where I went several times as a child, is a great day out. I look forward to taking my own children there soon.
In the Adjournment debate prior to the February half-term recess, I spoke in detail about a proposal that would devastate my constituency—the Oxford to Cambridge expressway road. I set out the case as to why it would be an environmental and economic disaster that would wipe out people’s homes, farms and businesses, and the beautiful villages of Buckinghamshire. I will not repeat the detail of those arguments today, other than to say that it was very good news that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published the Budget in March, the road investment strategy 2, or RIS 2, document that accompanied it moved the expressway project out of the “go ahead” column into the “paused” column.” Better news is that I have had confirmation that Highways England has not progressed work on the project.
It goes without saying that my constituents continue to be nervous and concerned that that project might reappear on the agenda. I ask the Minister to urge colleagues in the Department for Transport to move on and to look at alternative projects, such as improving existing roads and delivering a bypass for the village of Wing, rather than the Oxford to Cambridge expressway.
Moving to the covid-19 crisis, I add my voice to so many others this afternoon in thanking every single key worker who has supported us through the crisis. It has been a pleasure in the crisis for the county of Buckinghamshire as a whole to have come together and worked together. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) is in his place, and all five Buckinghamshire MPs have worked together with Buckinghamshire Council, the NHS trust and Buckinghamshire Business First to ensure that we are connected and working together to support all our residents.
On councils, I have nothing but praise not only for Buckinghamshire Council but, importantly, for all the town and parish councils that serve us. At a very micro and local level, they can do much to improve lives and support people.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. It is a delight to welcome him and all my new colleagues to their places—I have never seen the Bucks MPs work more closely together—and I echo his praise for all our key workers and especially our local NHS, who have been staggering in their efficiency and effectiveness.
Greg Smith
I totally concur with my hon. Friend’s comments.
To develop the point that I was making about parish and town councils, clearly the Government have put in unprecedented levels of financial support for the principal councils—in my case, Buckinghamshire Council—but parish and town councils have also spent considerable amounts of money for which they need support.
Earlier today, I talked to the mayor of Princes Risborough Town Council, in the south of my constituency. Throughout the crisis, the council has spent £20,000 on various initiatives. That might not sound a lot in the scheme of things, but to a town council it is an enormous amount of money, and it has lost about £30,000 in income—bear in mind that the total precept is £380,000, and that is an enormous amount. I urge the Government, if at all possible, to ensure that our town and parish councils also receive compensation that they need, so that as they set budgets for next year, services are not squeezed or cut.
I wish to focus on two sectors as we come through the crisis. I am enormously proud to be on the Conservative Benches, and to have supported the Chancellor on the unprecedented package that he has given to support businesses and jobs throughout our economy. As our economy reopens, some sectors still need support, and I agreed with every word of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) about the wedding sector. I have worked with companies such as Bijou Wedding Venues, which operates Notley Abbey near Haddenham in my constituency, and it is important that that sector gets to reopen more fully in a way that it knows it can do safely, if it is to survive.
There are also businesses that continue to be unsure. One of those is the soft play sector and children’s play centres. They are confused at the moment as to why it can be that children can do so many other activities of a similar nature, but they still do not have a date for which they can even plan to open. It is so important for children—I see this in my own three-year-old—to be able to interact and play with other children of their own age, in particular at that tender age when they are developing so much. I urge the Government to look at when, for soft play centres and similar businesses where children come together to play, we can get a date by which they may open.
Lastly, there is our coach industry. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed the “Honk for Hope” campaign as it came through Westminster very noisily the other day. I went out to meet representatives of Countrywide Coaches from Princes Risborough and Masons coaches from near Cheddington in my constituency. It is a sector that really is struggling, and it is an important sector for two key reasons. In their own right, such companies bring £7 billion into the UK economy every year, but they are also the enablers that bring people into London to go out, on day trips or on holiday, and to spend their money so that we will get the economy open once more. It is a sector that has had to spend an enormous amount of money—for example, through the public service vehicle accessibility regulations recently, which has left many of them £200,000 or £300,000 in debt. If we can get a support package for our coach industry, it really will be appreciated and support the economy.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I have three concerns from my constituency and then one national issue. First, train services from Congleton urgently need improving. Will the Government press Northern to do so now? In particular, the Sunday service, at just four trains per day each way, is unacceptable, with gaps of up to four hours between trains. There are still no advance tickets from Congleton. Local passengers have suffered endless recent service interruptions and strikes, and the latest blow is the complete removal of CrossCountry services, which need reinstating. This is a well-used station. It could be even more popular, given more regular and reliable trains. I urge Transport Ministers to ensure that the people of Congleton get the train service they deserve.
Secondly, I raise a concern on behalf of an entrepreneurial restauranteur and hotelier in my constituency, who expresses gratitude and appreciation for recent Government measures for the hospitality industry, but has concerns on business rates policy. He tells me: “Hospitality pays a second tax on sales. This is because the business rates are assessed on sales, not on premises’ value. Why? It means that more successful businesses are penalised and failing poor businesses are rewarded. Can this be what Government really wants to achieve?” He explains: “When we bought a business four years ago, the business rateable value was £23,750, based on the sales from the previous owner’s low-level operation there—a poor operator who had made no investment and was rewarded with very low business rates and artificially supported. Since we have refurbished, we have now been reassessed for rates to £101,000. This is because of our sales reaching much higher levels. We already pay VAT on our sales. We already pay corporation tax on our profits. It acts as a complete disincentive to investment. We now pay more rates than the rest of the entire street put together. This includes two banks and seven shops. If Government want regeneration of the high street, this must be changed.” He concludes: “I am very happy to pay business rates based on a rateable value that reflects the value of my trading buildings, but why should I have to pay more than other traders?” Can I ask Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers to review this business rating policy?
My third constituency concern follows the recent tragic loss of life both of a 17-year-old girl and, separately, a cyclist near Astbury, where for years there have been many similar tragedies. Residents at Wallhill Lane near Brownlow and Padgbury Lane are concerned, and I have been asked on behalf of the Link 2 Prosperity businessmen’s group to press Government for an extra link to the Congleton link road currently under construction—an additional section from Sandbach Road to Newcastle Road to improve road safety, help traffic flow around the town, improve quality of life for residents and reduce pollution in this residential area near Congleton High School. Would Transport Ministers consider funding this, please?
Fourthly, an issue of deep concern to parents across the country is the profound harm that can be caused to children all too easily viewing available pornography online. The Government have stated many times, not least in our 2015 manifesto, their intentions to better protect children from online harms, yet I regret to say that they have not followed this up with appropriately expeditious action. That action is urgently needed, particularly bearing in mind that lockdown has increased digital use by children. Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 required robust age verification checks, but they have not been implemented. The Government then said that they would seek to address that with other online harms, but action has progressed slowly. An online harms White Paper was published in April 2019. The consultation closed a year ago, but the Government’s full response has been delayed and is not yet forthcoming. Meanwhile, the proposed online harms Bill has not been introduced, and we understand that it could be 2023-24 before it is enacted and implemented—several years after age verification could have been implemented for pornographic websites under the Digital Economy Act 2017.
I am not alone in raising these concerns. Many Conservative MPs are extremely concerned. I call on Ministers in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and in other Departments to expedite work on this, so that several more years do not pass before children are better protected from the profound harm that seeing pornography online can cause. I urge Ministers to implement part 3, with age verification, now. We cannot make the internet safe, but we can make it safer.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I would like to raise several covid-related issues that have affected individuals and organisations in my constituency: first, the economic impact; secondly, schools; and thirdly, policing.
Hon. Members have raised the challenge facing the exhibitions and events industry, which is worth £70 billion a year to the UK economy, and provides 700,000 jobs. Organisations in my constituency such as Easyfairs UK, which employs 100 people, are really suffering. It was one of the first sectors to shut down, and will be one of the last to come out of lockdown. The industry has shed 20% of its direct workforce, with many more job cuts—potentially 60,000—to come in the exhibition space alone. It desperately needs further financial support, particularly as the furlough scheme ends in October. While we have been given hope by the Prime Minister that some of those events could get going again, it is the sort of industry that needs quite a lot of lead time for buyers and sellers and the setting up of those events.
Rightly, the October date is contingent on coronavirus prevalence data, as well as pilot events, but it would be helpful to have a slightly earlier indication on whether the industry could open up sooner, because it has worked with the Government to put in place a lot of covid-secure arrangements. The industry is known for its work on health and safety, so I urge the Government to look at that again. It relies a great deal on freelancers and the self-employed, and we have heard many times in the Chamber about the number of people who have been left out of the scheme.
I have been contacted by a freelance 3D designer in the exhibitions and events industry who has not worked since 12 February. Luckily, he can get a bit of support by furloughing himself, but he is a director of a limited company with a small salary. We have heard today about the ExcludedUK APPG, of which I am a member, and in which 250 Members participate. We heard some harrowing stories this week of the mental health impact on, for example, new job starters who were not eligible for the furlough. The lady we heard from is on medication and getting deep into debt. I urge the Government to look not just at plugging the gaps in those schemes but at further support for debt counselling, because many of those who are excluded have got into a huge amount of debt, and at everything that Members from all parts of the House have called for, including further support for mental health services.
I wanted to touch on funding and support for schools. I was horrified to hear from my daughter’s primary school, which is in my constituency, that what I thought was a welcome additional funding pot that was being granted to schools to cope with coronavirus excludes the claiming of costs associated with opening schools to more pupils from 1 June as well as additional staffing costs. This seems absurd to me, because many schools in my constituency and across the country have bent over backwards to try to welcome back as many kids as possible before the holidays safely and securely, in line with guidance. That has meant additional cleaning and IT equipment, fencing, screening and other materials to allow for social distancing and maintaining bubbles, as well as additional staff costs to cover staff who might be shielding, for instance. These are not covered in the guidance around the extra funding that the Department for Education has put in place. We know that many schools are already struggling with their budgets because of cuts over many years, so I urge the Government to think again. They should not have to absorb these additional costs when they have tried their very best to welcome back as many pupils as possible.
We have also heard many times in the Chamber about the lack of laptops for pupils who cannot afford devices to learn at home, and I particularly wanted to draw attention to Richmond upon Thames College in my constituency. We know that one in four children at colleges across London are on free school meals, so they are serving a particularly deprived population. The college had to give out 90 laptops and dongles to its pupils and used bursary funding to do so, but that bursary funding has been slashed by £130,000 by the Education and Skills Funding Agency on the basis that these pupils benefit from free travel in London. Those of us who are London MPs are well aware that under-18s free travel is about to be scrapped, thanks to the Government condition on the TfL bail-out recently, so I again urge the Government to rethink that policy.
Finally, I want to touch on antisocial behaviour and policing. We know that, because of the guidelines and restrictions, there is a lot more socialising outdoors. This has resulted in a lot of drinking until late outdoors and a lot of additional antisocial behaviour, with people using outdoor spaces as public toilets. I particularly draw attention to Twickenham Green in my constituency, where residents are long-suffering. I am dismayed that the police have said that the problem with stepping up patrols is that police in south-west London are being called to shut down raves in other parts of London. This comes back to the lack of policing and the desperate need to boost police numbers, so I urge the Government to make good on their manifesto commitments and boost policing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Steve Baker will have the last speech at six minutes. Everyone else will get five minutes to ensure that we get everybody on the call list in.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In High Wycombe, joy and celebration abound, because just last Monday, Wycombe Wanderers football club were promoted to the championship. I put on record how proud of them the whole town is. It is a miraculous achievement and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in congratulating them.
The first point I want to make about the Government’s business is that it is time to repeal and replace the Coronavirus Act 2020. I have made my case in a Red Box article in The Times today, and I am very grateful to The Times for carrying it. I am also very grateful to Liberty for its comprehensive and, indeed, abridged briefing, which it provided to Members and which I thoroughly recommend.
What we have seen since I stood over there and made a speech—which I think went fairly viral—in opposition to the range and scope of the Bill, is, as I made very clear, a dramatic expansion of powers being passed in an undesirably swift way. Of course, the Government needed to act in haste in all the circumstances. I do not by any means judge my right hon. and hon. Friends for that. They needed to do it, but they now have the luxury of time over the summer recess and, indeed, new information from what we have learned from the progress of the pandemic. I just say to them that this dramatic edifice of powers and regulations related to coronavirus and public health and their basis in law must now be reviewed comprehensively. Parliament must in future have a chance to scrutinise necessary powers properly, and the public must have confidence that rules are proportionate and have been reasonably made. Conservative Ministers worthy of the name cannot afford to be—and I am sure are not—cavalier about civil liberties. With that in mind, I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to look at repealing the Coronavirus Act and replacing it.
Let me move on to set the record straight for an individual and thereby try to right an injustice. As will become clear, I am the only recourse that this individual has. But I want to start by talking about trade policy, of all things. The UK Government are now embarked on a trade policy that most Members will know about: it will flatten power and make it more accountable to change the structure of power in the world to reinvigorate the global trading system, just at the moment when we need it. The UK is going to catalyse that change, but it is perhaps the biggest politics.
Many of the people associated with the journey of formulating that trade policy, from the days when the Legatum Institute special trade commission was doing that job, and I was working with them, have been exposed to and suffered really vitriolic attacks. Indeed, I would say that I have suffered malevolent attacks. Today, though, I want particularly to defend Christopher Chandler, who is the founder of Legatum and that family of companies.
On 1 May 2018, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) made a speech, the main object of which was Christopher Chandler. I wish to acknowledge the nobility of my hon. Friend’s intent, because any Member of Parliament presented with such a dossier would face difficult questions about what to do with it. He referred to a call for an Intelligence and Security Committee investigation of Mr Chandler, who does not appear in the recent ISC report.
We might, then, ask what Mr Chandler and others did. Legatum, the company that Mr Chandler founded with three partners and of which he is the chairman, commissioned an extensive forensic investigation into the claims by former members of law enforcement and military intelligence. Richard Walton, the former head of counter-terrorism command at the Metropolitan police performed his own independent review of the findings of that investigation and concluded that the allegations made by MPs in the House were totally false. Mr Walton has today briefed me on the reasons why he has drawn that conclusion, and I am absolutely satisfied that the reason why Mr Chandler has not been called to face charges is because there are no charges that he should face. He is an innocent man and, whatever the noble intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, I am afraid that Mr Chandler has been unjustly dealt with.
Legatum told me today: “When given the opportunity to present the truth, Legatum has overwhelmingly prevailed in 13 out of 14 actions in the UK, resulting in a stream of corrections, retractions and apologies.” This is, then, fundamentally a case of justice. As I say, I believe that Mr Chandler has absolutely no case to answer; it is just that under the system we currently have an individual has no recourse to what is said in the House of Commons, other than a Member of Parliament standing up for them. At some point the House is going to have to deal with the issue of a right to reply.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I was aware of what he was going to say. He makes a really important point and, respectfully, I listen with care. Clearly, a right of reply may strengthen the credibility of privilege, such that we could see it as a questioning event in the public interest rather than an accusatory one. I am in favour of that, because I want the privileges that we have to have credibility. I hear what he says and I respectfully listen to what he says and to what he says about his friends. I would merely say that parliamentarians who care about the relevance of this place wrestle with what the right thing to do and say is, sometimes in complex and difficult circumstances. Does he agree that we all try to act in the best possible way? If there is work to be done on updating privilege, I am very happy to join that.
Mr Baker
I would not expect my hon. Friend to go any further than that today and I am very grateful to him for what he has said. That will have been heard and I am grateful to him.
In the urgent question earlier, I said something about Legatum’s work on Russia, which I think is honourable and noble. It would be strange indeed if Mr Chandler was connected to Russian intelligence, given that he has put so much investment into fighting the effects of Russian wrongdoing. I have already mentioned trade policy; it is rare indeed that one can say that somebody has facilitated so much benefit to so many people.
Let me say a little more, because Mr Chandler is also a believer in private philanthropy. Since its founding in 2012, the END Fund has facilitated the delivery of more than 720 million treatments relating to neglected tropical diseases, in 27 of the world’s poorest countries. His Freedom fund has liberated 24,277 men, women and children. His Luminos fund has, through its Second Chance accelerated-learning programme, seen 132,611 children brought back to school. Mr Chandler is not a man who should have been vilified; he is an inspiration.
Injustice is not always brought down on the heads of the weak. Virtue does not always belong to the poor. On this occasion, I have had to do something, which would have been far better had I not had to do it, and that is to defend a man who is wealthy and strong, but who has been placed in a position without a right to reply, and it has been necessary for me to stand up today and to seek to set the record straight and to defend his honour. I say again that Richard Walton, the former head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, has investigated all of these matters and said, “The allegations made in the House of Commons are totally false.” If you will allow me Mr Deputy Speaker, my last words are from a quote chosen by Mr Chandler himself:
“Truth ultimately prevails where there are pains to bring it to light.”
I have taken those pains today. Let truth prevail.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The coronavirus experience has introduced us all to many businesses and organisations in our constituencies, which, however long we have lived in them or represented them, we did not know about. One of those for me was the very thriving events industry in Mitcham and Morden. I have had almost 15 companies approach me, including Larry Walshe Studios, Just 4 Linen, Dash Linen, LightWave Productions, White Light Ltd, Focus Lighting, Tuxedo Express Laundry, Skyline Whitespace and Oxygen Events. What unites them is that they are all part of the events industry, providing services to other bodies, and all of them, without exception, have had no support other than the furloughing scheme. Many of them are now making tens and hundreds and thousands of people redundant.
Events firms that operate from industrial premises and that provide their services on a for-hire basis are not eligible for the Government’s expanded retail discount, under the guidance issued to local authorities, because they do not sell on-site, so are not covered by the definition:
“Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public.”
Unfortunately, eligibility for this grant is also a prerequisite for accessing the Government’s retail hospitality and leisure grant.
Throughout this crisis, events companies have been viewed by Government as providing services to the industry rather than actually being part of it, despite the fact that they are entirely reliant on this industry for their business. A point of frustration for these business owners is that the Chancellor himself said on 17 March that the event hire companies should be included in the envelope of leisure and hospitality and eligible for the RHLG, saying:
“Those that have business properties will be eligible both for the relief and the grant, which will cover a significant number of events companies that have premises. Obviously, if they do not have premises, they will not qualify for business rates relief, but should be eligible for some of the other measures that I have outlined today.”
Whereas other businesses, such as shops and restaurants, which have already had access to these grants, can open straight back up—I do not wish to underestimate the problems that they, too, are experiencing—these events businesses will have to wait a lot longer before they can reopen. Many events are organised a long time in advance —I am talking about weddings, conferences and concerts.
This is an industry that is worth £70 billion in the UK annually. An article in the Financial Times a week ago estimated that as many as 30,000 jobs could be put at risk if the Government do not step in. There has been a lot of focus on transparency in terms of when the events industry will resume and it is small consolation that the Government have now set the date of 1 October for some events, conferences and expos to resume, which will not make up for the seven months that they have been without meaningful work. Even then, depending on the state of social distancing guidelines by October, it may still not be viable for some businesses to come back, so what are we asking for? We are asking the Government to approach the remaining months of the furlough scheme for event businesses in a different way. Because they cannot come back to work, employers should not have to make a contribution. The scheme should possibly be extended beyond October for certain corners of the events industry, if necessary. We are asking that the Government either revise the guidelines to local authorities to allow events companies to access backdated financial support through the expanded retail discount and the retail hospitality and leisure grant, or establish a new pool of support for those companies, transparency with businesses and a clear timetable or road map for returning all corners of the events industry as far as possible, so that they can plan and prepare accordingly. Larry Walshe of Larry Walshe Floral Design suggests a VAT reduction in the same way as for other events companies. That will encourage consumers with postponements and engaged couples to plan a wedding for 2021-22.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is how we respond to a challenge that defines us. Covid has brought our communities together in ways that I think none of us could have imagined six months ago, ensuring that the most vulnerable—those who are shielding or on the frontline—are supported, encouraged and taken care of. In Runnymede and Weybridge, we have volunteers delivering food parcels and collecting prescriptions; councillors, charities and volunteers at Runnymede foodbank, simply next-door neighbours, helping out in their street. We have community initiatives such as Nourish our Nurses, which was established in my constituency to support staff at St Peter’s hospital, delivering fresh fruit and vegetables with handy recipes. Incidentally, on that note, St Peter’s has told me that during this crisis it has received more chocolate than even NHS staff can manage. As a former NHS doctor, I find that slightly surprising, but there we are. Local resident Matthew Thomas, when his marathon was cancelled, ran lengths of his street with the aid of neighbours to raise money for charity—the first Weybridge street marathon.
Hundreds of constituents, such as Sew Weybridge and Sew ’n’ Sew, have put their talents to sewing masks, scrubs and scrub bags, while others, such as the design and technology department at Salesian school in Chertsey, have used their skills to make visors and screens. On that note, I recently visited Brooklands college in Weybridge, a top-notch college that offers vocational courses to hundreds of students, young and old, with fantastic local industry support. We are going to need that as we come out of this crisis. It tells me that applications for apprenticeships are up, all supporting my constituents’ prospects in the job market. Throughout Runnymede and Weybridge, there are examples of our residents, our businesses and our schools—everyone—going the extra mile and our communities becoming even stronger as a result.
We often talk about key workers, but the fact is that in our society everyone’s work is key. Arguably, the hardest challenge is still in front of us. We must not just support jobs, but make jobs. We must not just protect our businesses, but give them the tools to grow and flourish. We must consolidate our strong public services and allow the NHS to continue and evolve. Local representatives tell me that they have seen more change in a few months than in a lifetime. I welcome change and our fast responsiveness to covid, but we must also reflect carefully on our next steps.
I believe that the role of the state should be to provide the opportunities for growth and the assurance that there will always be support for those who need it most. In Runnymede and Weybridge, that particularly means improvements to our roads, our rail connections, supporting our aviation sector, improving our natural environment, and protecting our homes and businesses from flooding by building the River Thames Scheme. However, development and infrastructure need to work with our communities. Aviation needs to be sustainable and not blight people in Englefield Green, and across Runnymede and Weybridge, with air and noise pollution. People living in Addlestone should not have to keep their windows closed due to noise from the M25. Our rail services should make the daily commute easier, not push people into driving through cancellations or high fare prices. On our public services, the Weybridge hospital site needs to cater for the needs of the community it serves.
We clearly face many challenges, but with change also comes opportunity. It is my sincere hope that we can use this time to seize those opportunities with ambition and determination. As we recover and rebuild from this crisis, we must not just bounce back but bounce higher.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Today, I want to return to the incredibly important conversation started in this country after the outrageous killing of George Floyd in May. In my view, that conversation is only partially complete: vital questions regarding our intentions and objectives hang in the air, alongside solutions asserted from some quarters which, at least to me, remain untested and are at times jarring to the good nature and general tolerance of the Britain I know and love—questions such as how we, rightly, consign all forms of discrimination in our society to history, how we interact with our complicated past, and, fundamentally, how we raise up our fellow man and woman to fulfil their ambitions, focusing on where they are going rather than where they have come from.
That this debate even began is something I welcome. When these questions arose two months ago, I looked forward to a robust, potentially uncomfortable debate, acknowledging the past and recognising the progress made, but accepting there would always be more to do. Yet what came next was neither what I expected, nor sometimes did it, in my view, do justice to the questions that were raised. On issues as deeply sensitive as this, we all have a responsibility to debate as broadly as possible, with a willingness to both listen and recognise that no single one of us and no single group has the answer to every question, but too often we have seen attempts to impose a single worldview on the contours of this important debate: a new framework about discrimination, saying that it is somehow intrinsic and unavoidable; about individual autonomy, saying that we are reduced to the indelible product of our physical and mental characteristics, rather than being more than the sum of our parts; about our societal ambition, saying that meritocracy may no longer be our shared objective; and about our compassion, saying that somehow we are institutionally unable to show it.
While I personally have much to learn and many more conversations to have, two months later I simply do not recognise this portrait of our country: systemic discrimination, inherited privilege, the implication that ends justify means, the assumption that only one ideology, anti-capitalism—or, more accurately, Marxism—can resolve some of the challenging issues in front of us, and the focus on inanimate objects rather than on minds and intents and souls.
Do we really want to centre debate on the vexed issue of statues, for example? How can the toppling of a statute ever be helpful in demonstrating our respect for the rule of law and due process, and, fundamentally, how does a focus on pulling down and graffitiing statutes help one poor child in North East Derbyshire or Newham or Norfolk?
Every day when I come to this place I am surrounded by reminders of the past. Many of those reminders are historical figures who at best ignored and at worst oppressed my family, my class and those who came before me who wanted to live their lives with the freedoms that I have today. They sent my forefathers down the mines to die early. They treated my rights and freedoms as their own personal playthings. They put people like me to death over hundreds of years. And yet the answer for me cannot be to focus on stone images or inherited sin; those statues are the reminder of an imperfect past, but also of how we built a better society based on the toils of individuals who can do both good and bad at the same time.
Our island has a story; it is gory, bloody, bloodthirsty and unacceptable at times by modern standards, but at the same time it is a unique story of progress and resolution. It is the shared endeavour of all of our history that now allows us the freedom to look at what might be, rather than to focus on what was.
And to do that, we simply must talk. I have heard too much in recent months about exhaustion and fatigue, and that some of us are no longer going to talk about issues of profound importance. Yet no one can be exhausted. Join the battle, be critical, stop cancelling your opponent; live that Voltairean notion that, other than those who advocate violence, we respect the right of anybody to say whatever they want, even if we disagree with it. One may erase men’s voices, status or words temporarily, but is it not better to seek their souls than their silence?
So, as we end this parliamentary Session with profound questions hanging in the air, I hope we will return to these issues again in the autumn. These issues of profound importance need to be constantly in our thoughts, but, equally, constantly debated, rather than reduced to predetermined ossification.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley). I share his desire to maintain the debate about Black Lives Matter and racism and discrimination in our society. I hope and expect that it will continue.
As we break for the summer recess, I have a long list of issues that I would have liked to raise in this debate. I have written letters to Ministers about many of them, but have not received a reply for several months. I could have picked any of them, but I will focus on an area of urgent concern that I hope will be put at the top of the Minister’s to-do list—namely, the national scrubs crisis.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers across the country who have worked very hard to rise to the challenge of the national scrubs crisis. Demand went up hugely. Previously, 20% of healthcare workers had to wear scrubs, but since covid-19 most of them now do so. The Government have simply not risen to meet that demand, so volunteers across the country—from Shetland to Devon, and at the Putney Scrub Hub— have stepped up. They have sewn and cut and worked all hours. I pay particular tribute to Rosie Taylor-Davies, who has led an amazing team of volunteers. They have made 4,000 scrub sets for the Royal Marsden Hospital and 3,000 sets for St George’s Hospital, and have also supplied care homes, dentists and breast-screening clinics. These are not small orders; they meet a large, industrial-scale need.
In response to a recent survey, 61% of UK doctors said that the hospital where they work faces a shortage of scrubs. This situation risks the sharing and spreading of the virus. Dentists have told me that they did not feel that they needed to close down during this crisis. They could have stayed open, as happened in Germany, but they had to close because of the lack of PPE, including scrubs. That simply cannot happen if there is a second wave.
At the same time, there have been multimillion-pound contracts for PPE, which need to be explained. They include a £252 million agreement with Ayanda Capital Ltd, a company owned by the Horlick family through an entity based in Mauritius, which is a tax haven. In addition, £108 million-worth of PPE contracts were entered into with a chocolatier and a supplier of pigeon netting—strange choice. And an £18.5 million contract was awarded in May to Aventis Solutions, which is an employment agency with net assets of £332. During this week’s hearing of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the Secretary of State failed to provide any answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) as to why those contracts were awarded and how much PPE they have actually provided.
We do not have a national plan on scrubs, so we are relying on volunteers such as Putney Scrub Hub in Roehampton, which has taken over squash courts and is working all hours to make the scrubs that we need. Garment factories are lying unused and garment workers are unemployed, even though we have this huge need. Months into the crisis, we are still relying on volunteers to meet this need. It cannot go on.
How much longer are the Government planning to rely on volunteers to provide basic health equipment? Why is there no sustainable national scrubs manufacturing plan, with a proper UK supply chain using garment factories to meet the needs of all of our health workers? We have applauded them on Thursdays and we know how much we owe them, yet many of them lack the basic equipment. Medical students have been told to provide their own. Doctors have been told to bring in tracksuits. People have been told that they need a call-out for children’s pyjamas for medical need.
Will the Minister please put this issue at the top of his to-do list over the summer recess? Will he bring together the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care to put together and deliver an urgent scrubs plan before we return in September, so that all our NHS and healthcare workers have the equipment they need, and all the volunteers at Putney Scrub Hub and across the country can put away their sewing machines, put down their scissors and get back to their normal lives?
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Bury football club was elected to the Football League in 1893. It was expelled in August last year due to the financial mismanagement of two people, Stewart Day and Steve Dale. A community has lost part of its heritage and tradition and something that has linked generations for more than 100 years. How can that possibly be correct?
I cannot overstate the loss of Bury football club, in an emotional, social and economic sense, to the town that I represent. It is a disgrace. The English Football League did nothing to assist Bury. It allowed people to run the club into the ground. It put nothing in place and did not represent the interests of the fans of the club—a club that is so close to the hearts of thousands of people I represent.
I raise this issue now because many other clubs in the English Football League are facing significant financial challenges. Many other clubs will potentially find themselves in a position where they are on the market and people will be looking, as with Bury, to buy them for a pound, take advantage of the support and financial support of the fans, take money out of the club and vanish, which is essentially what happened in Bury’s situation.
The EFL is not, and has not in the last 12 months, been fit for purpose in terms of how it addresses and represents the interests of the fans, as highlighted by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which said clearly that more must be done to safeguard the interests of football fans who rely on their football club for friendship and camaraderie. For many people in my town, it was the only time they went out. One man in his 70s had been going to Gigg Lane since he was a boy and those were his only friends over that time. He has lost those things. The football club is much missed.
I fear that many other football clubs will be in Bury’s position. The EFL, since the debacle with Bury, has not changed the fit and proper person test. It has not put in place any procedures to address the problems that the Bury situation created. Indeed, football clubs are nearly unique in that their customer base, 99 times out of 100, cares more for the company than the actual directors.
As politicians, we must realise that football clubs are more than simply the playthings of individuals who want to take money out and take advantage of fans. They can be engines for social regeneration. Once a club like Bury has been lost—I hope to goodness it does not happen to any other clubs—the effect is felt by local businesses that rely on the club. Businesses have gone out of business in my constituency because the football club does not exist. What is the EFL doing about that? Nothing, and nothing has changed in the last 12 months.
I call on the EFL to face up to the issue. It must ensure that the fans of clubs all over the country do not face the same fate as those of Bury, that they have a defender in the EFL, and that it is an organisation that will make sure that the people who take on such clubs have the right character and financial backing to properly represent the interests of the fans who are dedicated to their clubs and have been for many years.
Bury was in division one at the start of the season, which has now finished. If the EFL is going to give financial assistance, by whatever means, to other clubs facing a similar financial situation to the one that Bury faced, it cannot be right that it simply turned its back on professional football in Bury. I urge it to work with all in Bury to ensure that football continues to be played in Gigg Lane at the earliest opportunity.
I give my thanks to everyone who has worked so hard at Bury AFC. It is a phoenix club and, in the last few days, it gained membership of the North West Counties Football League, which is a fantastic achievement. Everybody involved in that club should be extremely proud of everything that they are doing to resurrect football in my town, but that does not get away from the fact that Bury was treated appallingly. I hope to goodness that no other fans go through what Bury fans have gone through in the last 12 months.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
We come to the end of this parliamentary term in the sober knowledge that in the past six months more than 45,000 families in the UK have suffered the devastating loss of bereavement due to covid-19, many thousands more have suffered the trauma of a terrifying serious illness and millions now face job insecurity. I pay tribute to the amazing team of staff at King’s College Hospital, to those working in social care and in our schools, and to all the key workers who continue to work through the long, hard slog of covid-19.
For many of my constituents, there will be no rest or peace of mind over the coming weeks, and this summer will continue to bring challenges and hardship. Many private renters in my constituency live every day with anxiety about what will happen to them after 22 August. So many have suffered a loss of income due to coronavirus and are in rent arrears as a result. It is extraordinary that the Government have stubbornly persisted with their plan to end the temporary ban on evictions in just a month’s time; not only that, but it has put the burden of proof on the tenants to demonstrate the impact that coronavirus has had on them, forcing people to disclose deeply personal information in court just to keep a roof over their head. The Government ask landlords and tenants to work together to resolve problems, but there is an immense power imbalance between landlords and tenants, and many abuses of power result from the Government’s ill-informed, ill-conceived approach.
I pay tribute to social care workers, who have done so much to support and care for our most vulnerable loved ones during the pandemic, often placing their own lives at risk without access to testing or PPE to keep them safe. It is shameful in this context that the Government are content to clap social care workers during the pandemic, but not to award them a pay increase like other key workers. One of the most important priorities for our coronavirus recovery is reform of the social care sector, and improving the pay and conditions of those who work in social care—who have witnessed heartbreaking scenarios, and been there to care for and comfort the most vulnerable in our communities during this time—is critical to that.
Finally, families across my constituency should be looking forward to a summer break—holidays, day trips or a relaxing time at home. But it is impossible for people to relax when they have no money and their prospects of finding work at any time in the near future look uncertain. That is the situation for freelance workers, new starters and sole directors of limited companies, who have seen their income decimated but have still received no support from the Government. The plight of 3 million people across the UK who have been left behind during the pandemic is desperate, and I urge the Government to do much more this summer to ensure that they are supported.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all House staff and Members a safe, restful and healthy break over the summer, but in doing so I urge the Government to turn their attention with urgency to those for whom this summer brings only struggle.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this final debate before the summer recess. I am going to talk about one specific issue that is linked to the constituency that I have the honour of representing, but which also affects the whole country—that is, the use of social media in prisons.
This is a particularly pernicious crime. Social media is often used by convicted criminals to brag openly about how they are continuing to break our laws even from behind bars, and how they are still enjoying freedoms that should have been taken away from them, such as communicating with the outside world. These social media posts display a lack of respect for our criminal justice system, and, even worse than that, they show complete contempt for the victims of crime, their families and friends.
Victims and their loved ones should not have to live with the fear and anxiety that perpetrators can continue to have a presence in the community or even use social media to contact them. It often feels like the person who victimised them is taunting them on social media when they are posting from inside prison. The use of modern technology to post on social media is a way prisoners can essentially break out of prison walls and carry on causing anguish and misery to all those they have hurt. This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs, and it cannot be allowed to continue.
This anguish has repeatedly been felt in Ipswich since the brutal murder of Tavis Spencer-Aitkens in June 2018, which left our town in a state of shock. Five men were sent to prison in connection with Tavis’s death—four for murder and one for manslaughter. It is now my understanding that all five of them have made social media posts since being locked up. Most of us can only imagine the additional pain this has caused Tavis’s family as they seek some sort of peace after his tragic death.
I want to go into detail about three of these cases that have been brought to my attention since my election and set out clearly how this problem has persisted. The first case occurred in January, when Callum Plaats, who was convicted of Tavis’s manslaughter, posted a picture of himself grinning on Facebook, along with the caption, “Five years left lightwork”—five years being the remaining amount of time he expects to serve in prison if he only serves half his 14-year sentence. At the time, I called for Plaats to serve his full sentence given this contemptuous and insulting act of criminality from behind bars, and I stand by that today.
I thank the Prisons Minister for meeting me following that case and setting out the work that the Government are doing to combat social media use in prison. The extra £100 million being invested in detecting mobile phones in prisons and stopping them getting in there in the first place is welcome, and I am in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to tackling this issue, but two further cases of social media use by Tavis’s killers since then have caused further concern that more needs to be done.
In April, Aristote Yenge, who was convicted of Tavis’s murder, posted on Instagram calling on people in the community to get in contact with him. In the post, he brazenly detailed the prison he is in and his prisoner number. I called on Facebook to take this account down, which it did, and the Prison Service launched an investigation. But just this month, Kyreis Davies, who was also convicted of murder, posted a picture of himself posing on Snapchat. This latest post is a particularly bitter pill to swallow, after Davies recently had his sentence reduced on appeal from a minimum of 21 years to just 16 years. I have spoken before in the House about the anger that this sudden reduction has caused in Ipswich. His recent criminal communication from prison has only added to the disbelief and confusion in our community about why this murderer will now be released, a free man, in his early 30s.
Ultimately, I think all of us can probably accept that it is completely unacceptable that individuals convicted of murder and asked to spend a life sentence in prison are able to freely communicate on social media from inside prison. It is against the rules, yet it continues. Every single time they post, the hurt and anguish felt by friends and family of the victims only increases. When this House comes back in September, the House must debate this and the Government must take action to eliminate the use of social media in prisons. Yes, the investment in technology to detect mobile devices is welcome, but we should go further. There should be a strong punishment for all these individuals who use social media in prison, to serve as a deterrent for anybody else who considers doing that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The winding-up speeches will begin at 6.32 pm, and I have six names on the call list, so if everybody sticks to five minutes, the last person will not quite get five minutes, but almost everybody will get equal time.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I want to start by sharing some news. I was really pleased and proud to become an auntie over lockdown, and I am very excited for Suzanne, Graeme and Fraser James Thewliss, the newest addition to the family.
There have been lots of babies born in lockdown, and my heart goes out to all the families who have found it particularly difficult not being able to see new babies, meet their families and cuddle. It has been incredibly difficult for many people to come to terms with that, and I hope that there will be joy and jubilation when all these families are reunited.
Can the Minister investigate when breastfeeding support groups and other groups that parents have not been able to go to and socialise in, as they usually would in the new days with a baby, will be able to safely start back up again? That is a great source of support for many new parents. If he could also look at support for milk banks, that would be very useful. There was a piece on the BBC this morning, presented by Victoria Derbyshire, with Dr Natalie Shenker of the Human Milk Foundation speaking about the importance of milk banking to many families, particularly in lockdown. It has had very little Government support, and some support would be welcome to ensure that this sector is well protected as part of the NHS.
It has been heartwarming to see the groups in Glasgow that have come together during lockdown, providing support to so many people in our communities. I have a huge list of names I would love to read out as a thank you, but I will restrict it to three. I want to thank Possibilities for Each and Every Kid—PEEK—whose PEEK-a-chew van managed to deliver 140,000 meals to families in Glasgow during lockdown. It fundraised for this and it was really well received. I also wish to thank the Sikh food bank and Charandeep Singh, who has organised 70,000 meals going out to families in Glasgow since April. This will be kept going until the end of August and, again, it has been incredibly well received by many people who cannot get the food that they would usually be able to get and by older people who are particularly isolated. I also thank the Sistema Scotland Big Noise Govanhill and congratulate it on its seventh birthday, which falls this week. It has managed to get devices out to young people in Govanhill so that they can continue with their music lessons over lockdown. It has provided data to those devices so that the young people who did not have internet connections at home could get that.
The more serious issue I wanted to raise before the House rises for recess is the two-child limit and the rape clause, which Members know I have raised on many occasions. The figures released just last week by the Government have highlighted that 911,190 children across the UK are now missing out on valuable support because they happen to be born as the third child in their family. Restricting child tax credits and universal credit to the first two children in the family is having a hugely detrimental effect. It was already punishing families for circumstances that they could do nothing about, and the coronavirus has only made that worse.
I pay tribute to the Church of England and the Child Poverty Action Group, which have campaigned relentlessly on this issue, along with many women’s organisations, under the banner of “All Kids Count”. Inherent in this policy is a judgment and stigma about the number of children poor families have, and this myth of the “welfare queen” that has gone about for so many years. The Government will say this is about making sure that those in work can make the same choices as those supporting themselves through benefits, but that is not the case, because nobody can predict the future. Nobody can predict the course of their life, from when their children are born, all the way through, until they leave the family home. It only takes a death, somebody losing their job or a family splitting up to plunge a family into a circumstance, which is why we ought to have a social security safety net.
The current safety net is full of holes and issues such as the two-child policy are now driving child poverty in this country. I urge the Government to reconsider and to reinstate these benefits, because this a trap for so many families, from which they cannot work their way out. We are talking about low-paid families—families who are working. The vast majority of people who would be entitled to this benefit are in low-paid work. They are the very people Members have talked about as having kept the economy going: people working on the frontline, in shops and as cleaners, doing their utmost to keep us going. So the Government owe it to these families to keep them going, to make sure that their children can have food put on the table for them and that no child is punished because of the size of their family. After all, we cannot predict the future and nobody should be punished because of it.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, there are many points I wish to raise. I look forward to a fully functioning Parliament, when it is safe to do so.
Unfortunately, Southend airport has been hit by easyJet losses, arguments about section 106 and about night flights—we had a good meeting with the Minister recently. I congratulate all the local police officers on the way they have tackled antisocial behaviour, which has spiked recently. But I think the money that has been wasted on restoring the Belvedere is to be questioned—there is lots of graffiti back on it again. Like my neighbouring colleagues, I was horrified when I learned about proposals to reorganise local government, with an elected mayor, which we had not been consulted on. It is just not going to happen, but I think it would be helpful if the Government gave the local authority leaders a steer as to the way they see future local government reorganisation.
The endometriosis inquiry is carrying on, and I am delighted to say to colleagues that, inspired by my constituent, Carla Cressy, we will be issuing our report in the autumn. Billy Mansell is a wonderful constituent working for people who suffer from fibromyalgia and he has launched a new initiative called “Sphere Master”—I congratulate him. I am delighted that the Government have introduced Lucy’s law and delighted that so many of my newly elected colleagues are strong on animal welfare measures.
Southend must and will become a city. The Duke of Edinburgh will be 100 next year and Her Majesty the Queen will be celebrating her 75th anniversary a year afterwards, so we need a city competition and Southend can become a city.
I congratulate the Music Man Project on securing a grant of £10,000 from covid relief funding and we will be taking our wonderful show for people with learning disabilities to Broadway.
I am so sorry that I have to announce that the inspirational Paul Karslake, a constituent who was a wonderful local artist, has died as a result of coronavirus. I send my sympathy to his relatives. I also greatly miss Dame Vera Lynn. She was an east ender like myself—wonderful. Let us have no arguments about a statue to Vera; let us get one put up. On that subject, the British Monarchists Society also feels that there should be a statue to Her Majesty the Queen to coincide with her 75th anniversary.
A constituent—I shall just call her Barbara—has tried everything to get some financial support during the pandemic. She cannot get income support. She does not qualify for the self-employment scheme. She is an events organiser. I want the Department to give her help.
This year is the 100th anniversary of the mayoralty of Southend. John Lamb is the present mayor, so he will still be the mayor during the 100th anniversary’s inception.
At Ekco Park in the constituency I represent, there is an argument between leaseholders and freeholders about the upkeep of people’s properties. That needs to be settled. Everyone would recognise that we need housing, but it is just not on to put more houses on green areas in Lundy Close. I am sick to death of Travellers arriving. My thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—we want the Government to stop Travellers and the antisocial behaviour.
I visited Mr Sandhu’s son in prison in the Czech Republic. The trial is going on at the moment. I hope we get a good outcome.
I am delighted that we have tax breaks for motor homes; they deserve it. I thank the Czech ambassador for visiting war graves. I congratulate the 3rd Chalkwell Bay Sea Scouts on getting the Queen’s award for voluntary service. I was delighted to take part in the Jack Petchey virtual judging.
The Maldives have been readmitted to the Commonwealth; my interest is in the Members’ book. They have been hit over tuna and hit over air bridges. Now, they are on the human rights priority countries list. Absolute disgrace.
I pay tribute to the coronavirus action group, and I am delighted that a statue of Eric Cole will be in place on the Ekco site. I congratulate Audrey Snee on her work there.
We have presidential libraries; we need prime ministerial libraries. It was a shame that the VE day celebrations could not go on as we had wanted. I am organising a VJ day celebration on 15 August.
Sadly, again in Southend West, we lost wonderful Dr Zaidi to coronavirus. I congratulate Westcliff High School for Boys on its centenary celebrations. I am glad that we are leaving the European Union. I praise all those people who have contributed on covid-19. c2c continues to give a rotten service. We should not have TV licence fees for the over-75s; some of the producers are paid too much. As far as schools are concerned, with the 11-plus, we want guidance on the delay in the test as soon as possible from the Government.
I wish every colleague a very happy summer recess.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Congratulations, Sir David Amess. Wonderful. That was one continuous sentence, I swear.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I reassure him that, as far as I am concerned and others on this side of the House, Southend is already a city. We already know that.
My parliamentary aide, who looks after my speeches in this House and gives me some of the things that I say, has got her bags packed. She is understandably far away at this stage. She is probably very pleased to have the recess in place. I am especially pleased to represent my constituency of Strangford. Everyone here will know—I say this very honestly and very respectfully to everybody—that it is, without doubt, the greatest constituency in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am also proud of my heritage and of my culture, and I am going to speak about that very quickly in the short time that I have. I am a member of the Orange tradition—the Loyal Orange Lodge in Kircubbin, the Apprentice Boys of Derry in Comber, and the Royal Black Preceptory in Ballywalter.
This year was a very, very different 12 July for us in the Province, because we did not have the parades. We in the Orange tradition and the loyal orders took a decision not to parade—not to bring people together, for specific reasons of safety because of the pandemic. I absolutely hold to my tradition. There are events held Province-wide that have never had an issue and that see neighbours of every background—nationalist and Unionist, Protestant and Roman Catholic—enjoying music and a carnival feeling, bringing money into the local economy and having family days off work together.
The celebrations for the Twelfth this year were different but none the less still precious. The loyalists took the decision not to march, but the bands walked the designated routes with their social distancing and did many, many parades around the villages and the towns. The bands range from flute bands to silver bands, to accordion bands, to pipe bands, to brass bands, bringing an absolute volume of rhythm together. There is music from many generations, from hymns to classic pieces—all are played as the band marches on, the streets thronging with happy children, grannies in their foldaway chairs, and families waving their Union flags, and their Ulster flags as well, enjoying the family day out. I give credit to the ordinary, decent, good people of the Province.
The Orange Order made the courageous decision not to have the official Twelfth, but there was commemoration of the battle of the Somme when the Orangemen of the 36th (Ulster) Division stormed onwards with their orange sashes or ribbons on and held high, with the war cry, “C’mon boys—no surrender!” The decision not to march this year was made to protect the vulnerable from this dreadful disease, and we applaud that. We celebrated glorious garden Twelfths. We did not congregate; we kept socially distanced. We did not line up in our thousands on our streets, but we did celebrate with each other in a safe way. Outside gatherings were restricted to 30 people. I thank all those who thought outside the box to allow the tradition to continue, but in a safe way.
We had bands who applied to walk and marched in communities, such as the Sons of Ulster flute band, who marched in and out of every cul-de-sac in the local Bowtown estate in Newtownards to enable people to come to their front door and enjoy a taste of the Twelfth while remaining safe. The North Down flute band put on a display for elderly residents in Newtownards. We also had the Newtownards Protestant Boys, the ex-servicemen and veterans band, the Newtownards Melody band and the William Strain memorial band, who all marched in different estates and areas to bring the Twelfth to people at home.
Down on the Ards peninsula, where I live, the Ballywalter flute band and the Ballyhalbert flute band marched, as well as the Auld Boys flute band. The hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) will know what I mean when I refer to the Auld Boys. They are people who used to be in the bands in younger days and then got together when they were 50-plus and joined together in a band. That was the band that we had in our lodge. The Auld Boys were out there and we went to support them as well. The Comber bands, the Ballygowan bands, the William Savage Memorial Toye band from Killyleagh and the Ballynahinch Protestant Boys band from Langley ensured that people could stay at home and enjoy with family what we usually take to the streets to celebrate.
I love the Twelfth. I enjoy the craic. I am proud of how the people of Northern Ireland, in the face of adversity, determined to uphold the tradition as well as was possible. The reason is that it means more than a tradition and more than something to do. It is a part of what makes us who we are, and of what makes me proud to sit in this place—our love of our country, our heritage and our Queen. I want to congratulate the Orange Order, the bandsmen and women, and every person who would usually throng the streets. Thank you for doing this well—for remembering in safety.
There are only 355 days until the next 12 July, which I am really looking forward to already, for the laughter, the smiles, and, hopefully, no fear of covid-19. I wish everyone here, especially the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), a visit to Northern Ireland next year, if that is still on the cards.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose passion for this place and for the Union I hugely admire. He will not remember doing it, but a few weeks ago he intervened on me and at that point I felt like a proper MP, so I thank him for that. It is probably unconventional to say so, but I am pleased to be followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who has ingrained in my mind Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I am sure he has spoken about them in this place more in the past six months than they have been referred to in the past six years, so well done to him.
In my maiden speech, I talked about a lot of my constituency’s issues coming under the heading of infrastructure, and that is what I want to talk about today—first, the importance of reopening Grove station. I am delighted that it has made the list of stations to be considered for funding to be reopened this summer. I have told my constituents that I will keep going until it is opened or I lose my seat—I hope that it will be the former. My constituents have wanted this for 40 years, and it will take people off congested roads and will connect the area better. It will support our efforts on climate change, and I hope that we can make it happen.
That is not our only transport issue. We would like better cycleways, and we are pleased with the Government’s commitment on that. We also have problems with our roads. Beyond the usual potholes that everyone has in their constituency, we have particular problems with the A34 and the A420. In normal times, there is crash after crash and near-miss after near-miss, as well as huge problems of littering. Coming to an Adjournment debate near you, with permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, are the A34 and the A420. [Interruption.] Indeed.
One reason for needing better transport links is the increasing population in the constituency. A huge number of houses have been built in the constituency, and another 5,500 are coming in the next decade. Most people in the constituency accept that the country needs more houses and that we need places for people to live in. Issues arise, however—apart from when it is right on their doorstep—when the proportion of affordable homes is driven down by developers on the grounds of viability; when houses are built to standards that are not environmentally friendly, or when they are simply built to low standards, with all sorts of problems that go far beyond the snagging that we might expect from new developments.
Along with those houses, we need new services. We need more school places and, in particular, health services. I am having productive conversations with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about that. The population of Didcot has grown by 38% in the past five years, so GP services and others are bursting at the seams. Those infrastructure issues are for when we return from the recess, but when I go back to my constituency, one of the big things that I want to do—other Members have touched on this—is support local businesses, shops, pubs, bars, community groups, charities and so on.
I had a bit of an issue last month when I tweeted that I was going to spend a day visiting shops, and would try to buy something in each one I went in. The local press reported that I was going to visit every single business in the constituency and buy something. That was a particular concern, given the number of estate agents in my constituency. Fortunately, the good people of Wantage and Didcot do not believe everything they read.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
May I begin by thanking the amazing people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke for their tireless work during the pandemic? I am delighted to nominate a few of those unsung heroes: Amy Stephens, who led Team Chatterley and 50 volunteers to deliver meals across the area; Scrubs for Stoke, which sewed 10,000 items or more for our local NHS—the Royal Stoke University Hospital and the Haywood walk-in centre; Adam Yates and Carol Shanahan from the Hubb Foundation, which has delivered over 100,000 meals during the pandemic; and a gentleman called Richard Stephenson Evans, who works for Kidsgrove Tesco and has given up his time, again and again, for the community of Kidsgrove and Talke. He has delivered once again during the pandemic. If ever a man deserved a knighthood, it must be him. I hope that that was heard by those with the opportunity.
Ceramics are where I want to go to next, because I cannot for the life of me believe that at Chequers the Prime Minister does not have Stoke-on-Trent tableware to eat from—[Interruption]—which is a shame. We need to make sure that that is corrected, with better Government procurement of ceramics. We need to make sure that whenever I visit a Government Department and turn one of its plates or mugs, it says “Made in England: made in Stoke-on-Trent”. Churchill China and Steelite are wonderful additions to the UK economy, and we need to see the 5% VAT rate extended to supply chains such as ceramics. The business rates holiday should be extended to allow those businesses to keep going, because they are vital to the economy of my constituency. I hope that the Government will back the #DineSafe campaign, which copies health advice from Spain, and says that if people have chipped plates they should replace them—with, of course, Stoke-on-Trent’s finest, which will stop coronavirus seeping in past the glaze.
Chatterley Whitfield is the next thing I come on to. It is an amazing colliery, the largest deep coalmine site in Europe. This site will be an industrial heritage park in the future. I have put my political career on the line over this site. Not a single predecessor of mine has spoken about this site since 2010. For 10 years, the site has been ignored in this House—according to the House of Commons Library, in case anyone thinks I am lying—so I raise the issue. I have an industrial heritage park coming along, and we have Historic England, Chatterley Whitfield Friends and Stoke-on-Trent City Council with a long-term plan.
We will put a museum on there, bars and some retail units. We will turn some into a teaching school for Staffordshire and Keele universities, and the rest will be open for the private sector to bring about the business park revival that is already on the site, regenerating, restoring, protecting and preserving our industrial heritage—from the pits to the pots is how we are known in Stoke-on-Trent, and we must ensure that that history is not forgotten. I implore the Government: I want half a million for a feasibility study to ensure that that is possible. My grandad always told me, “God loves a trier.”
Price & Kensington is another thing. Section 216 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be looked at in this House in a ten-minute rule Bill debate on 22 September. I am looking to get rid of a level 3 fine, leaving it unlimited, because Price & Kensington, an amazing teapot factory, is being allowed to rot by a rogue owner. A private owner is allowing it to fall into disrepair, stuffing it with mattresses and allowing it to become a fire safety hazard. The fine should be unlimited. The measure was a great piece of legislation brought in under Labour during the Tony Blair years, but I want to see an unlimited fine so that the judges can decide how bad the damage to the community and to safety is, therefore making owners responsible for the lands that they own. I hope to have cross-party support for that.
Silicon Stoke is the next thing on the agenda. VX Fiber and the city council have teamed up, with £9.2 million of Government investment, to install gigabit broadband into the home directly. Staffordshire University is the leading video games development university in the country, and we have some of the best 4G download speeds, so I want a 5G testbed in Stoke-on-Trent. I want the levelling-up agenda to take place by making us the heart of the video games industry—with the likes of Carse & Waterman Productions and Reels in Motion, we can see the full potential. Let us introduce a video games investment fund, encourage more small studios to access and benefit from the video games tax relief, provide rent-free accommodation and promote Silicon Stoke.
On the Stoke to Leek line, we have not seen a single station reopen since Beeching. In fact, we have seen further cuts. I want to see a line that will link us up and potentially give me back a station in Milton, giving the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke better rail access. At the moment, the line is there, but it is mothballed. Network Rail has to maintain the bridges but, guess what, gets no money back for that.
Finally, the great town of Kidsgrove: I am delighted that the Labour-run town council has backed my plan for CCTV to be upgraded, and with the £25 million in the town deal we have. We will deliver a fantastic health and wellbeing centre. Kidsgrove sports centre must be delivered—we have 63% more inactive people and some of the worst childhood obesity stats in the country.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is an unusual pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis).
I first give a shout out for the many people in my constituency who have absolutely gone the extra mile during the coronavirus pandemic, whether the staff at the local hospitals—Weardale or Shotley Bridge—the fantastic work of local doctors in care homes, the people at Hunger Handout in Leadgate who I will visit over the summer recess, the people at Glenroyd House in Consett who have been making scrubs for doctors and helping out with food parcels, and many local groups from Maiden Law to Wearhead. I say a huge thank you for everything that they have done.
I also thank those on the Government Front Bench who have visited my constituency over the past few months. Unfortunately, the Northern Powerhouse Minister and the Environment Secretary who came to visit are no longer in post. When I informed the party chairman of this the other day, she was rather worried. However, I do not want to discourage any other Ministers from coming to North West Durham, and I have already extended an invitation to the Minister for Defence Procurement to visit Cook Defence Systems in Stanhope, which makes the tracks for all our armoured fighting vehicles. I have a commitment from the Health Secretary to visit at some point—we are desperate for a new community hospital at Shotley Bridge—and from the Education Secretary or one of his team to visit the excellent Derwentside College, which produces such fantastic vocational education for young people.
Shotley Bridge is my top campaign, but my second big local campaign has been for a feasibility study of the possibility of getting a transport train link or guided bus link back into Consett. We have one of the largest populations in the country without access to a fixed public transport system, and I am really hoping to hear good news later in the summer from the Department for Transport. If the Minister could possibly give the Department a nudge, I would be most grateful, as would my constituents.
My predecessor as Member of Parliament for North West Durham said that she did not have any friends who were Tories, but since I joined this House I would like to think that I have made at least two friends on the Opposition Benches. One of them is the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who is the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve. She has allowed me to work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and to lead on the National Audit Office report and the PAC report on gambling harm.
That reference to gambling harm brings me to the other Opposition Member whom I would like to think I can now call a friend: the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who gave a passionate and emotional speech earlier. I am glad to see that she is still in her place. I really hope that later this year, once we have looked at the Gambling Act 2005 and after the review that is due to take place, the Government will introduce legislation. It is really important that the country looks at gambling, which is a huge issue for many people—particularly the poorest and the most vulnerable—in many constituencies throughout the country.
I wish to finish with two other small things. First, I thank the Government for listening to me on the motorhomes tax earlier this year; the workers at Elddis are most grateful. I also thank the Government for finally bringing forward the removal of the toilet tax. As co-chair of the all-party group on local democracy, I know that that means an awful lot to really hard-stretched local councils.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be the SNP lead on the summer Adjournment again; I think this is now the fourth occasion. I note that this time I am the 37th person to speak in this debate, which is a record—it is usually far fewer than that.
It was good to see hon. Members continue some of the great traditions of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on becoming the apprentice of the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). Perhaps we should call him Anakin for the purposes of this exchange. In the finest tradition, he raised a lot of constituency issues, and I will try to do that too in my allotted time.
I see the Minister, the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), is in his place, so I have two quick observations. First, when he was in the Ministry of Defence, he always promised me that Glasgow South West would get contracts. He always promised that there would be contracts for shipyards and contracts for Thales. Perhaps when he responds he can tell us where those elusive contracts are and update me on their progress.
Secondly, I try to keep out of English-only debates, but if by next year Southend is not a city, I predict that the hell that will be unleashed on the Government will be a considerable one. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend West will continue to push for that.
We always read in the newspapers that MPs are now going on holiday. It is not a holiday; it is a recess. From my email inbox and the post that my office gets, I can say only that my office has never, ever been busier than it has been during the covid pandemic. I assure new Members that it is not always like this. The work has been considerable, and I pay particular personal tribute to the greatest constituency office staff in these islands, which is of course that of Glasgow South West. I pay particular thanks to my constituency office staff: Dominique Ucbas, Scott McFarlane, Tony McCue, Keith Gibb and the great Roza Salih, who is the office manager. I pay tribute to all the constituency office staff of all hon. Members across these islands.
Many hon. Members have quite rightly congratulated the constituency organisations that have stepped up to assist the most vulnerable during the covid pandemic. I have been particularly pleased, as a trustee of Feeding Britain, to secure £50,000 from that organisation for short-term and long-term food projects. One of those is the Ridgeway Dairy and Drumoyne Community Council free packed lunch service for the people of Drumoyne. The Govan Youth Information Project did a similar project for young people in Govan. I am particularly pleased that the Scottish Government have stepped up and provided significant amounts of money for the communities of Govan and Pollok during the covid pandemic.
Like other hon. Members, I want to express my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones due to covid. I have been particularly saddened to see the families of some of my regular constituency correspondents get in touch with the office to say that they had lost them. I am particularly thinking of Mr John Dunlop, a person who regularly corresponded with the constituency office, and I express my sincere condolences to his family.
I am afraid to say that we have also, unfortunately, lost a number of young people who have taken their own lives in Glasgow South West. That has been particularly hurtful for the community, and I do want to touch on this subject. I want to thank the Turf Youth Project, which has organised social-distanced meetings to communicate with young people and their families, and which is now moving on to an online survey. I believe this is a major issue that we are going to have to deal with not just during the pandemic, but as we get out of it. We need to make sure that young people have opportunities not just job opportunities—I will come on to that—but creative opportunities. We need to make sure that they have the necessary support, the club infrastructure and all those things so that they have a creative outlet to express themselves. It is very important that young people have that creative opportunity through music, film making or any of those activities.
I am particularly pleased—a number of hon. Members have referred to this—that the Women and Equalities Committee is looking at the whole issue of body shape and the pressure on young people to have a certain look and a certain perspective on life. Rosshall secondary school invited elected Members to the school to discuss its projects, and concerns about that came up a number of times.
There have to be job opportunities for young people, and when we come back in September we really need to have a discussion to make sure that young people are not discriminated against. We now know it is easier to make young people redundant than older people. Why is that the case? Because, under statutory legislation, people under the age of 22 are entitled to only half a week’s wage for redundancy pay, whereas for someone over 40 years of age it is one and a half weeks. We perhaps need to think about that issue, but also, for those hon. Members who spotted my face mask earlier, about the WASPI issue. The slogan of the 1950s-born women is, “We paid in, you pay out—give us our retirement and give young people work.” We need to have a discussion about how we merge those issues. There will be some economic thinking that all political parties have to engage in, and we should now debate whether the old ways of looking at things are appropriate and whether we now require new thinking.
There has been a record number of speakers, as I said earlier, and perhaps one of the reasons is the lack of Backbench Business debates. I am particularly thinking of the aviation sector, which 140 Members have asked to participate in a debate on. I think that is really important.
I hope the Minister will apologise to the people of Glasgow for the Government closing half the jobcentres two years ago, with the news that they are going to have to reopen them. That is perhaps an indication of some of the things the Department for Work and Pensions has got wrong. I ask the Minister to pressure the Home Office to investigate how Glasgow asylum seekers have been treated during the covid pandemic. Being locked up in hotels and given food that is completely and utterly inappropriate is no way to deal with those people.
In closing, let me touch on the issue of statues, which the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) raised. I perhaps did not agree with everything he said but we need to have a debate on statues. They are symbols and we are going to have to deal with that appropriately. What we cannot have, as we have had in this country, is people giving Nazi salutes to cenotaphs or statues of Churchill. That is perhaps one of the most sickening things that we have seen in the last few months, and I am sure that the whole House will agree with me in condemning that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that at the end of the debate—at 7 o’clock—you will rise Alice Cooper-style and declare that school’s out for summer. I congratulate all hon. Members and hope that they have a good summer back in their constituencies, working with the great organisations that are out there.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I start by thanking every single one of the hon. Members who stayed behind; we have heard from over 30 hon. Members today. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) has asked me to remind the Minister that there are 30 Backbench Business debates still waiting to be allocated, so perhaps he could do that. For hon. Members who have not done this before, the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) made her maiden speech at one of these events, and there she is now—she will be doing the Adjournment debate—so she has got well stuck in, and her maiden speech was not that long ago either.
Hon. Members raised a number of issues and I will gather them under various headings. The issues of businesses and additional support from Government were raised by the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris)—she persevered with Martin’s fund—and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).
I do not have to remind right hon. and hon. Members that this is an incredibly unusual time. Many hon. Members mentioned covid-19, our local heroes and the difficulties for people and businesses, including the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). I have to agree with the hon. Lady about the steel industry. My friend Nic Dakin played an important role in ensuring that steel remained in Scunthorpe, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), when that all broke, was in India trying to organise a meeting with Tata.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about the importance of music during this time. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) showed us how lives have changed in 180 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about our local heroes in the NHS and the leadership of the First Minister in Wales. She passed me a note earlier that said, “Visit Wales”—but only if socially distanced—and, of course, I have to add Northern Ireland and Scotland and every other part of our wonderful nation to that.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) talked about the issue of cash, which is very important. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) all talked about the difficulties in their constituencies under covid-19.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) will be surprised that I agree with him—I think that there should be less interference from the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and we need to review the Coronavirus Act and the immense powers under it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about the scrubs crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) mentioned our key workers, particularly in King’s College Hospital—the doctors and all the workers, including nurses, care workers and those who push the trolleys and feed people who have had to go to hospital.
I do not know how the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) did this, but he managed to get on the call list, very quietly. Other hon. Members mentioned their constituencies—the support, the successes and some of their concerns, which I know the Minister is noting down carefully. That includes the hon. Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Bury North (James Daly), for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for Wantage (David Johnston). I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) that we were very jealous when the former Chancellor, George Osborne, gave Tristram Hunt, the then MP, extra money for the Potteries. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman has made the call and that will be answered.
Many Members touched on human rights and our international links. Our country should be a beacon of hope around the world. As I do every week, although the Leader of the House is not here, I will mention Nazanin, Anousheh and Kylie. The hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) talked about human rights and the Uyghur. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) said how important it is that we keep up the international links, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) said we must continue the debate after the death of George Floyd. I put on record our condolences to the family on the death of Representative John Lewis, who I thought would see us through this difficult time. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Dr Martin Luther King and Reverend Jesse Jackson. What he did say was:
“Don’t give up and don’t give in”,
and we won’t. We have seen how, during the coronavirus, our communities have come together, so that we can build a new world for the nephew of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), Fraser James, and all the babies born in lockdown.
I do not know what the hon. Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have done. I think they must be on the naughty step. Usually they open this debate. Again I reiterate my support for Southend becoming a city, and I will absolutely do all I can to support the hon. Member for Southend West.
Finally, I want to thank Mr Speaker and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone who has pulled this House together, including all the House staff and all our staff. I think we can put away our Zoom faces. They are actually quite scary, aren’t they? I do not want to do that any more. I have to say to all hon. and right hon. Members and everyone around the country that we have all been magnificent and you have all been magnificent. We will not be having a rest; we will still be working, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said. In the meantime, I hope everyone does have a relaxing summer. I thank you all for your hard work.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is probably an appropriate time for me to follow that by thanking, on behalf of Mr Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers and, indeed, all Members of Parliament here, all the staff who have—through daily miracles, quite frankly—enabled us to have the Parliament functioning during this unprecedented crisis. Thank you to each and every one of you in this Parliament.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Stuart Andrew)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I say what a pleasure it is to close this debate, although I think it was slightly easier to wind up last time, given that there were far fewer contributions? That is what makes this debate extremely enjoyable, however.
I would like to join every other Member in saying a big thank you to all members of staff here at the House for all the work they have done. I wish them a very happy and peaceful summer, because I think they really deserve it. I also want to say thank you to our Doorkeepers, who are always looking after us extremely well, and those in the Table Office, the Vote Office and those who have been doing the IT. Sometimes it has felt like we have been watching the Eurovision song contest getting the various constituency votes in, but it has been interesting, and I am glad those working on the IT have been able to do that so well.
I am glad also that Members mentioned caseworkers in our constituency offices. I know we should not, but sometimes we get used to some of the abuse we get. It is pretty awful that it is our caseworkers who sometimes get it, too, and I pay tribute to all of them for the work they have done.
Given I do not get the opportunity to speak very often, I will put on record my thanks to all the workers in the Pudsey constituency for everything they have done, including community groups such as the Farsley, Pudsey and Horsforth Live at Home schemes and Aireborough Voluntary Services to the Elderly. They have been amazing.
It has been a real challenge across the country, and I pay tribute in particular to all those who have lost loved ones. Our thoughts are certainly with them through what has been a difficult time. As we come out of it—we do that one step at a time—we can hopefully start to put this difficult period behind us. I know that this country will come together to try and make sure that we have better days ahead of us.
There have been some highlights. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) was talking about his local football club and their promotion, and I have to say that we have had our own in my city, with Leeds being promoted. Two of my friends who have gone through disappointment after disappointment over the past 17 years—Rob Murphy-Fell and Clare Horrocks—are finally celebrating the promotion of Leeds into the premiership, which is good news.
I have sat here today feeling a bit like Father Christmas, receiving children’s lists of requests. Some children are slightly greedier than others, but I will try my best to respond to each of the points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) rightly talked about the importance of the aviation industry. I know from my time in Defence the importance of the Tempest programme. I hope that it will help our industry in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and others quite rightly mentioned the awful way in which Muslims have been treated in China. We take this issue extremely seriously, have raised it on many occasions and will continue to do so. She also talked about domestic abuse during this difficult period. I am glad that she raised that subject. A really good thing that has happened in this period of our Parliament is the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. There has been real cross-party working on that legislation, which has made the Bill even better—and I thank colleagues for that.
The hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and others, mentioned the events industry. I know from my own postbag—and from a personal friend who has an events company—how difficult the current situation is for that industry. I will certainly relay the views of the House to the Chancellor and others, and highlight the specific points raised by those Members.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) started off talking about all the local heroes in his constituency and then—like other Members did—tried to convince us all to go to his constituency for our summer holidays. It certainly sounds beautiful, but he had to spoil it by going on about independence for Scotland. If only that once-in-a-generation independence referendum had gone the Scottish National party’s way; it did not and they need to get over it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) rightly paid tribute to one of her councillors, Councillor Longcake, who sadly lost his life during this crisis. My hon. Friend has also already been a fierce campaigner for the steel industry in her constituency, and other Members raised the issue with regard to their constituencies. I am getting a glare from the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), but it was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The Government are supporting the sector during this difficult period and we are putting huge investment into infrastructure. We have also introduced steel-specific procurement guidance that requires Government Departments and public bodies to consider social and environmental factors when procuring steel. I certainly hope that that will see more British steel being used in the fantastic investment that we are making across the country.
I wish the hon. Member for City of Durham good luck with her ukulele lessons. I am sure that we would all like to see them. I was glad that she and other hon. Members talked specifically about the use of music in trying to prevent male suicide. Suicide is an issue that we should debate and which unites us all in wanting to do what we can to try to reduce those instances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and others talked about weddings. From August, we hope to start phasing in larger celebratory meals or receptions for weddings and civil partnerships. Over time, we will assess whether it is possible to make such gatherings bigger. I fully understand the difficulties that it is causing. Two of my friends, Rob and Michelle, have sadly had to postpone their wedding, and I know that many others have had to do the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) said that Mansfield was the centre of levelling up in this country. I am afraid to say to him that, following the general election, we now have many other competitors for that position, as has been seen in this debate. He is a doughty champion for his constituency.
I want to move on to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). She raised the issue of beauticians and said that it was a serious issue. May I say from this Dispatch Box that I fully recognise and understand that? I know that there are many businesses that are worried, and we are looking at everything that we can do to ensure that they have a safe opening. She also talked about the issue of gambling. I know that this is something that she and others feel passionate about. We have been working closely with the Gambling Commission over the past 18 months to introduce a wave of tougher measures, and we hope to be able to report on that soon. Then she came on to the issue of the children’s funeral fund. My previous work in children’s hospices makes me very alive to the difficulty that many families face when they have lost a child. I have seen so many families go through that, and I want to congratulate her on her campaign. I am glad the Government have introduced it, and she is absolutely right that we need to promote it to other families.
There were a load of bids. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes put in a bid for a free port. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) talked about support for his constituency. I will make sure that all the bids are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister. I am afraid that that is as far as I can go. I was a bit disappointed that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) was trying to say that, in terms of levelling up, we were somehow favouring some towns and cities for electoral advantage. The point is that the people of those towns turned to the Conservative party because they were sick and tired of being neglected by their Labour representatives who had been there for so many years.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) rightly raised the issue of racism against the Chinese community. There was an extremely powerful contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley). He rightly said that, yes, we have some uncomfortable periods in our history, but it is only through history that we learn, and it is only then that we can make our country even better. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown that it is not just the Chinese community that we need to be thinking about, but every community. I hope that, whether it is a statue or whatever it is, we learn the lessons and educate the next generation about where we have come from and be proud of the fact that we have been on a journey. I say that from a very personal perspective. My life was very difficult when I first came out in the 1980s in Wales, but now nobody even bats an eyelid that I live with my partner. That is a wonderful testament to the way this country has developed. There is more work to do, but let us not forget the progress that we have made.
I just want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. He has received an award—jointly, I understand—for civility in public life.
Stuart Andrew
Oh, politician of the year. Pardon me for getting that so wrong. That is a fantastic achievement and I congratulate my hon. Friend.
I also want to mention a couple of other colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) talked about Bury Football Club. I remember the first day he arrived, he collared me and said, “Who is the Minister for sport?” He immediately went off and raised the issue with him. Clearly, he is not giving up and that makes him a superb MP for his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) quite rightly raised a very difficult issue of prisoners having access to social media. There is nothing worse than victims feeling like they are being hounded by the people who have perpetrated the crime from prison. I will refer that to the relevant Department.
I will probably have to finish here, because time is running out, although I will say that if my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) backs me in the next leadership bid, I will ensure that china from Stoke is stocked in Chequers.
Stuart Andrew
There is no vacancy—I said the next time!
Finally, I could not possibly cope with trying to respond to the many, many issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) raised so quickly, though I realise that he has just managed to get a year’s worth of press releases in about six minutes. I congratulate him on that and wish him well in his campaign to make Southend a city.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Southern Heathrow Rail Link
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
It is my great pleasure to open this debate and to have the opportunity to explore with ministerial colleagues and others the potential economic benefits of a southern Heathrow rail link. My belief is that a southern rail link fits exactly with the spirit of the times. It exemplifies the ambition set out by the Prime Minister that, after the pandemic, Britain will not only have a thriving future but one that is cleaner and altogether smarter than what went before.
This is not the first time that Members have sought to raise the issue of rail access to Heathrow from the south. Indeed, it is the very intractability of this question that causes me to bring it back to the House for further examination today, and I do so with the strong support of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord). With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to briefly cover that history, to look at progress since the announcement of the most recent Government initiative in 2018, to explain what economic and environmental benefits such a link could bring to the nation as a whole, as well as to my constituents in Guildford, and to provide my hon. Friend the Minister with the opportunity to bring us up to date.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing this Adjournment debate. She will know that this is an issue on which I have been engaged for over four years. In 2015, Hounslow Council put forward a proposed route for southern rail access to Heathrow from London and Surrey, including a station in Bedfont in my constituency. That was important to underpin regeneration proposals around Heathrow, and its benefit-cost ratio was very favourably assessed by Network Rail. Does she agree that this is a very opportune time to reconsider the economic benefits of such a proposal, not least in terms of the skilled jobs and greener infrastructure that we so desperately need and the direct link from Waterloo to Heathrow that could come from it? Along with my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is on the shadow Front Bench, I also want to mention the opportunity to consider western rail access to Heathrow, which has had Government approval since 2012.
Angela Richardson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree with her that now is the right time to look at the economic benefits and the skills and jobs that this will bring. It is exciting that this sort of project could have bids coming in from a range of providers, and the competition would be very beneficial. The Heathrow to Waterloo link could be looked at in the wider scope of the project, but I am sure she will understand that I am keen to see a line go to my constituents in Guildford. I will come on to the western link later in my speech.
Members from outside the south-east of England often, and understandably, criticise policymakers for taking a London-centric view of issues. I would like to reassure them that London-centricity can work to the detriment even of other towns and cities in the south-east. Access to Heathrow is just one example of this phenomenon. It is possible to reach the airport by train on a number of services, such as London Underground’s Piccadilly line, the Heathrow Express, Heathrow Connect services and hopefully, before too much longer, the hugely impressive Elizabeth line, which will bring direct trains to the airport from City and docklands. However, it is nigh on impossible to reach Heathrow by train from a whole number of boroughs in south-west London or substantial towns such as mine in Surrey and Hampshire, even though it is possible to see aircraft taking off and landing from some of them.
Transport authorities serving many of Heathrow’s competitor airports, such as Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle, have long since understood that a major hub for flights should also be a public transport hub. In Heathrow’s case, people can arrive by train if they like, as long as they are coming from the east. That gigantic airport, one of our drivers of economic growth, tourism and investment in normal times, and undoubtedly again after the pandemic, effectively sits at the end of a branch line.
Clearly, there are other public transport connections to Heathrow that are not based on railways. It is served by a variety of coach and bus connections that are valuable to airline passengers and the many thousands who work in the wide range of businesses located there. Those services include a direct hourly coach link from Guildford that opened in the last two years. Nevertheless, however many buses and coaches are available, they fail to attract the substantial number of users who otherwise default to their own cars or taxis and private hire vehicles. Those vehicles congest still further the greatly overloaded road network that serves the airport, cause damage to economic efficiency and reduce the attractiveness of the region south of Heathrow to investment.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about an incredibly important topic. A direct rail link from Guildford to Heathrow would make a massive difference not only to her constituency but to mine in Meon Valley and beyond. At the moment, it takes up to two hours to get there by train and coach, as she has mentioned, but about 45 minutes or less—or half the time, anyway—by car. Does she agree that it will take cars off the road, which will have an incredible environmental impact on her constituency and the others surrounding Heathrow?
Angela Richardson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I could not agree more. The time spent in the car on those journeys to Heathrow from constituencies that are further down the line than mine and further away from Heathrow has an impact on the environment. Those cars on the roads generate vast quantities of noxious gases and particulate matter that are harmful to the health and wellbeing of our citizens, along with substantial volumes of avoidable carbon dioxide.
In such circumstances, some might say, “Build more roads then,” but it was recognised by Highways England in 2016 that no amount of road building could overcome the problem. Its “M25 South West Quadrant Strategic Study” concluded that only a solution based on public transport investment could address congestion on this vital national motorway. Indeed, I understand that it is one of the most congested stretches of motorway in Europe.
With such a blindingly obvious need for rail access to Heathrow from the south, there have been a number of attempts to find an answer. The most significant of those was a scheme known as Airtrack devised by BAA, then owners of Heathrow, in the early years of this century. The fundamental, and ultimately fatal, flaw in the Airtrack proposal was that it was based on knitting together various sections of existing railway, with a few short additional stretches, and then greatly increasing the frequency of trains on those tracks.
The Victorian lines were built in an era when road traffic was horse-drawn, so they intersected at multiple locations with level crossings that now serve thousands of cars and lorries every day. The increased frequency of trains over those crossings would cause the level crossing barriers, and hence the roads, to be closed for unacceptably long periods. When the opposition of road users, communities, businesses and local authorities found voice through hon. Members of this House, the Airtrack project was doomed.
Airtrack had been conceived in part as an attempt to mitigate the major expansion of airline passenger numbers and employees at Heathrow associated with the opening of terminal 5. The one positive legacy of this story is that, beneath terminal 5, there sits in cavernous darkness a station awaiting the arrival of a railway from the south.
I understand that similar provision exists for a western rail link to Heathrow at terminal 5. The western scheme has been under development for as long as the southern route and would contribute to making Heathrow a public transport hub on the international model I described earlier. I know the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has been an energetic supporter of a western link for the benefits it would bring to his constituents and I am delighted to see his interest in the debate this evening.
Returning to a new railway for my own area, the prospect of a southern rail link to Heathrow was raised once again as part of the consenting process for the expansion of the airport by means of constructing a third runway. Without revisiting all the many powerful arguments for and against Heathrow expansion, it was noted, as part of the scrutiny of the proposal by the Transport Committee, previously chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), that a southern rail link was urgently needed with even a two-runway airport, let alone with the third in place.
It was in that context that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) announced, as Transport Secretary in March 2018, that a southern rail link to Heathrow would be the pathfinder scheme for a radical initiative to attract private sector investment and ideas into the design and construction of new railway infrastructure. That was a widely welcomed announcement, as it opened up the prospect of not just businesses but local authorities and local enterprise partnerships helping to accelerate the development of vitally needed new railways, rather than having to wait in a queue with many other existing schemes being devised within the traditional rail industry process. Now, more than ever, we need to allow the talent and expertise in the private sector to contribute to our levelling-up efforts across the country.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I admire my hon. Friend’s innovative approach to championing infrastructure in her constituency. Does she agree that projects like this present an excellent opportunity for steelmaking constituencies like mine in Scunthorpe, where we make a number of world-class steel products, such as rail?
Angela Richardson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I could not agree more. Now is the time to champion British steel. She is not only a champion for British steel, but for the jobs that will bring in constituencies like hers. I would like to see that tie-up and opportunity.
We have a style of action now that has been adopted by the new Secretary of State for Transport and his colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who is replying to the debate, to invite proposals from a range of stakeholders to reverse the Beeching-era rail closures. Sadly, however, more than two years have now elapsed since the original invitation for promoters to bring forward ideas for a southern rail link to Heathrow.
Members across the House will appreciate that the machinery of Government has been disrupted by events since March 2018, but my key question for my hon. Friend the Minister is this: when will we see full throttle applied to this project? For in truth there is no conflict between this scheme potentially benefiting south-west London, Surrey, Hampshire and the wider south of England, and the Government’s levelling-up agenda for the nations and regions of the UK. Most of the infrastructure schemes envisaged for the north, the midlands and the south-west require significant amounts of public money, but the southern rail link to Heathrow does not. Private sector investors, backed by design and construction partners, are ready to get on and build this railway. I believe we should choose one of them to do just that.
From the perspective of my own constituency of Guildford, I have been grateful for information supplied to me by the directors of Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd, whose design proposal avoids the busy level crossings at Egham, which proved so tricky for Airtrack. They envisage frequent trains from Guildford reaching terminal 5 in just 29 minutes and then continuing on to Old Oak Common for interchange with HS2 and the long-awaited Elizabeth line, before terminating at Paddington. This will be transformative for my constituents and for the capacity of Guildford and other towns similarly served, such as Woking, Basingstoke and Farnborough, to attract investment. It is little wonder, therefore, that local authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire County Councils, as well as the Enterprise M3 local enterprise partnership, want to see urgent action taken by the Government.
In conclusion, may I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the station is waiting at Heathrow? Let us lay down the tracks, enable the building of a southern rail link to Heathrow, and stoke the engine of prosperity in Guildford and beyond.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the permission of the mover and the Minister, I call Dr Ben Spencer to make a small contribution.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and the Minister for allowing me to speak in this debate. I also admire my hon. Friend for the strong case—it was a tour de force—she made for a southern rail link, which would provide a local economic boost and create and support jobs in Runnymede and Weybridge at a time when they are sorely needed. It would deliver greater connectivity between Heathrow and London and my constituency, and cement my constituency’s status as one of the best places to live and work—alongside, of course, her constituency of Guildford.
A southern rail link would improve our local infrastructure and economy, but, crucially, it would also help us meet our environmental targets. Air pollution and noise pollution from the M25 and M3 affect Runnymede and Weybridge badly. We want people to use public transport, but the infrastructure needs to be in place. This would support the aviation sector, which both directly and indirectly supports many jobs and businesses in Runnymede and Weybridge. A new train track to Heathrow airport would not just help those who want to head off to Lanzarote—dare I say it, but I think everyone in this country could do with a holiday? It would also create jobs in the sector and help those in those jobs to get to work, day in, day out.
At a critical point in our country’s economic recovery from covid, a southern rail link would help us to not just bounce back but bounce higher.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I would like to start by thanking everyone who has contributed and by extending further congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) on securing this debate on the economic benefits of a southern rail link to Heathrow airport. I also congratulate all others who have contributed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), who is unrelenting in her passion for her town and its core industry, as I think she will find we are in the rail industry, too.
The question my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford asked about the economics of a southern Heathrow rail link is, as she outlined, one that my Department has been considering for some time. Our Heathrow rail access programme was established in December 2016, with the aim of providing a step change in the accessibility of Britain’s busiest airport.
Unless travelling from central London, the current public transport offering to Heathrow is poor. Many people choose to use their own cars instead, leading to the traffic congestion that my hon. Friend outlined. Improving transport links to the airport would open up access for many regions of the United Kingdom, and a southern access scheme would open up new markets across the south-west of London and, indeed, the south-east of the United Kingdom, providing an attractive alternative to the heavily congested road network.
Although demand for air travel has fallen dramatically due to the coronavirus pandemic, we are supporting and want to see the recovery of the aviation industry. Thus we recognise the importance of major schemes such as this in encouraging people back to air travel, as well as in supporting passengers as they return.
The scheme my hon. Friend mentions would be part of the Government’s plan to build back better, build back greener and build back faster. We want to rebuild Britain and fuel the economic recovery across the United Kingdom. As she knows, this Government have committed to building a Britain with world-class infrastructure and have established Project Speed, ensuring that we are building the right things better and faster than before. Project Speed is an ideal method of dealing with some of the delays with the southern link.
The Heathrow rail access programme comprises two major schemes: the western rail link to Heathrow, serving Reading to London Paddington via a new tunnel to Heathrow, is the other one. I, too, am pleased to see the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) in his place. Not only does he give proper scrutiny to everything I try to do in the Department; he is also passionate about making sure that the western rail link to Heathrow actually comes about and does what it says on the tin for his constituents and others. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, I am pleased to see him in this debate.
The southern access link is at a much earlier stage of development than the western rail link project. It is intended to link terminal 5 directly to the south-west of London, potentially as far out as Surrey and Hampshire. I know that that is welcomed not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Guilford but by a whole host of people across Surrey.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister and I have spoken briefly on this matter since he took up his post. May I make a request to him because I think there is an opportunity in this world of projects to move forward? Sometimes there has not been a coherent debate, a proper assessment and proper criteria against which to evaluate a scheme. In the interests of the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson), who wants to see support for her constituents, in the interests of regeneration, and knowing that it takes two buses sometimes to get one and a half miles to Heathrow for my constituents as well, for work or for travel, is it time to convene a small cross-party taskforce in this place to look at how we might break through some of that and give those perspectives from our constituencies to help move this forward for the Minister?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As I hope I will outline, this project is moving forward at a decent pace, but, on extra scrutiny from this place, there will be barriers. There will be people who rightly want to scrutinise any decisions made on this and I think that would be a valuable suggestion to take forward, as the project moves forward.
It is an important project. It is currently led by my Department. It is a pathfinder project, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, seeking to harness all innovative forms of delivery and technology from the private sector to deliver a better service for passengers and ensure better value for money for the taxpayer.
As my hon. Friend said, only about 21% of all passengers travelling to Heathrow airport from the south use public transport instead of private road vehicles, and for areas such as Surrey and Hampshire, and Guildford especially, I am told that the figure is lower still, so we know that a market exists for this. In contrast, almost half of passengers and airport staff travelling to Heathrow airport from London and to the east of the airport do so by public transport.
Good progress is being made. Following the publication of the strategic objectives in November last year, my officials are currently finalising the pre-instituting outline business case—my Department loves a bit of jargon—to outline the case for change and the need for a scheme such as this, and to set out practically how the scheme could and should be taken forward. They continue to work closely with commercial advisers to develop commercial and financial models, with the intention of working alongside the private sector to fund, finance and deliver this scheme.
The scheme is in its infancy and as yet no route or mode has been selected, and there is also the possibility of more than one type of intervention to boost transport options. It can, however, be assumed that heavy rail will play a major part in the southern access to Heathrow.
It is clear that there is a strong case for improving transport links in the region, as I have described, and not just for airport passengers and employees, but for those who live in the wider area and would benefit from the roads being freer around Heathrow and, indeed, the extra public transport options this would bring. So while there are many different options for the scheme, we know the potential benefits are clear. First and foremost, it encourages people from their vehicles on to public transport, reducing congestion. We know this can be achieved through the creation of new and accessible high-frequency, reliable transport links with the interchanges and step-free access this scheme would bring. It also helps us to reduce the environmental impact of aviation and the associated carbon emissions, an important step on the path to net zero, and not only by providing new environmentally friendly journey options but also by utilising sustainable construction methods and materials. It will take into account any key environmental undertakings in that area being developed in collaboration with the relevant local authorities and local enterprise partnerships.
Obviously, this should—this could—help to connect communities, boost economic growth and encourage regeneration. It could provide—it would provide—greater connectivity and journey choices in south-west London, Surrey, and Hampshire to central London and help us with capacity across the south-west rail network as well. It would seek to employ the local workforce and source its apprentices locally, and look to improve trade links locally, nationally and internationally. And not just through passenger trains, because freight is also an important part of this equation, providing a much-needed boost and connection for the local and national economies.
As I said, this scheme is very much in its infancy and there is still much to be developed, but the work carried out to date and the work under way demonstrate that, if we get this right, it will be a really positive step towards the development of transport in the south of the UK and alleviating many of the pressures outlined in this debate, working to meet the needs of so many passengers and to improve the prospects of so many locally and nationally, across the whole of the UK, who travel around that part of our country.
A scheme such as this does not come without challenges. To ensure the safety of passengers, road users and pedestrians, we will not want to increase the usage of level crossings; level crossings are a bind for any rail Minister who has ever stood at this Dispatch Box. The new platforms at terminal 5 are underground, so it will be necessary to excavate tunnels, and the scheme will be required to integrate with new and existing infrastructure, both at terminal 5 and on the south-west main line—to name but a couple of the challenges.
There is, however, already strong market interest from the private sector. Several of the groups interested have developed scheme proposals to varying degrees. The Government tested market appetite in late 2018 and, although many organisations showed interest in developing and delivering a southern scheme, none was able to progress without some form of Government support. So my officials continue to work closely with these scheme promoters, operators, construction companies and capital investors, along with the wider private sector, to harvest the innovation and insight that they can provide, and that we can learn from to build a process for securing the best, and the very best value, scheme possible. The Department will continue to develop the southern access to Heathrow scheme, working alongside Network Rail and Heathrow Airport to integrate it with the western rail link and other major transport projects, ensuring the most efficient design and delivery of the whole scheme.
I am very aware of the strong benefits a southern access to Heathrow scheme will provide, not only to the passengers and employees of Heathrow airport, but to the people living in the surroundings of south-west London, Surrey, Hampshire and beyond. I look forward to working with all who are interested in developing this scheme and I am keen to move forward at pace.
I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate for emphasising the importance of this scheme and of aviation to our country. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford on securing the debate on the economic benefits of the scheme. I wish her, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all who work in the House a peaceful and healthy summer recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Duddridge
Since its inception, the facility has supported the management of over 3,300 protected areas covering 860 million hectares, and in totality the projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 27 billion tonnes.
[Official Report, 20 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 1971.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the Adjournment debate tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
The correct response should have been:
James Duddridge
Since its inception, the global environment facility has supported the management of over 3,300 protected areas covering 860 million hectares, and in totality the projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2.7 billion tonnes.
Written Statements
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Consultation on 2025 UK Border Strategy
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
When the transition period with the European Union concludes at the end of this year, we will leave the single market and customs union. As we embark on a new chapter for this country, we have the opportunity to design a future border that delivers maximum benefit to the UK.
Today, the UK Government will publish a public consultation to invite stakeholders to share ideas and evidence to help develop a 2025 UK border strategy that will deliver the world’s most effective border by 2025. A border that is more streamlined and user-centric, that helps businesses take advantage of new trading relationships around the world, while maintaining high-levels of security to protect the public, the environment and public health.
Our goal is to publish a 2025 UK border strategy by the end of the year setting out a clear vision and road map that the Government and border industry, working together, can deliver.
This announcement follows the launch of the public information campaign, “The UK’s new start: let’s get going”, and the publication of the border operating model on Monday 13 July that set out how businesses and industry can prepare for the end of the transition period.
[HCWS418]
Public Bodies 2019 and Public Appointments Data Report 2019
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Lord Agnew of Oulton) has made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce the publication of Public Bodies 2019 and the Public Appointments Data Report 2019 and will today be placing copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
Public bodies play a vital role in the delivery of public services for all our citizens, covering wide-ranging functions. Well-governed, effective and efficient public bodies enable the Government to deliver their priorities.
Public Bodies 2019 is an annual directory that provides a single transparent source of top-level financial and non-financial data on all Executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and non-ministerial departments across Government.
The public appointments data report provides a breakdown of the diversity of public appointees who were in roles covered by the governance code on public appointments on 31 March 2019 and those appointed to such roles between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019. The latter data is a subset of the information published in the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ annual report.
[HCWS425]
Deployment of 5G and Extending Mobile Coverage
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Widespread, reliable mobile connectivity is essential for people and businesses. That is why the Government have agreed a £1 billion shared rural network deal with the UK’s mobile network operators to extend 4G mobile geographical coverage to 95% of the UK by 2025. The Government are also investing £200 million in a programme of 5G testbeds and trials to encourage investment in 5G so that communities and businesses can benefit from this new technology.
It is essential that the planning system continues to support the delivery of the mobile infrastructure that we need. On 27 August 2019, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published a joint consultation on in-principle proposed reforms to permitted development rights in England. The consultation ran for 10 weeks, closing on 4 November 2019.
Today I am pleased to inform Members that we have published the Government’s response to this consultation.
We are satisfied that the proposed reforms are necessary to support the Government’s ambitions for the deployment of 5G and extending mobile coverage, particularly in rural areas, where mobile coverage tends to lag behind more urban areas. In taking forward these proposals, we will ensure that the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards are in place to mitigate the impact of new mobile infrastructure.
Therefore, subject to a technical consultation on the detail of the proposals, including the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards, we are intending to take forward the proposals consulted on to:
Enable the deployment of radio equipment housing, such as equipment cabinets, on land without requiring prior approval, up to specified limits and excluding on sites of special scientific interest, to support 5G deployment;
Strengthen existing masts up to specified limits to enable sites to be upgraded for 5G and for mast sharing without prior approval;
Enable the deployment of building-based masts nearer to highways to support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage, subject to prior approval and specified limits; and,
Enable higher new masts to deliver better mobile coverage, and mast sharing, subject to prior approval and specified limits.
These changes will benefit communities and businesses and provide greater regulatory certainty to incentivise investment in mobile infrastructure.
The mobile industry has a vital role to play in delivering these improvements and in bringing forward the infrastructure required, and we expect them to commit to further measures and assurances to ensure that the impact of new mobile deployment is minimised.
Making these changes would require amendments to existing planning legislation. Prior to any future legislative changes, we will undertake the technical consultation.
We will now develop the technical consultation, working with mobile industry representatives, relevant regulators including Ofcom, representatives of local planning authorities and those representing protected areas, to ensure that the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards are in place to mitigate the impact of new mobile infrastructure. This includes strengthening the code of best practice on mobile network development in England, which provides guidance to mobile network operators and local planning authorities.
As planning law is a devolved matter, any future legislative changes will apply to England only, but we will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the planning regime continues to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure.
[HCWS422]
London Croughton Annex
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I informed the House on 20 December that I had instructed my officials to discuss with the United States a revision of the immunity arrangements at the Croughton annex for US personnel and their families, following the road collision of 27 August 2019 in which Harry Dunn was killed. As I set out previously to the House, the status of US staff under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations (VCDR) at the Croughton annex is the subject of special arrangements between the UK and US Governments, captured in exchanges of notes dating back to 1995. Those arrangements contained a waiver of immunity from criminal jurisdiction for US staff outside the course of their duties, but no such waiver for their family members.
I am glad to inform the House today that we have concluded those discussions with the US and agreed a revision of the arrangements. I welcome the constructive engagement of our US allies in these discussions.
First and foremost, the US waiver of immunity from criminal jurisdiction is now expressly extended to the family members of US staff at the Croughton annex, thus ending the anomaly in the previous arrangements and permitting the criminal prosecution of the family members of those staff, should these tragic circumstances ever arise again.
Secondly, the waiver from criminal jurisdiction now extends also to all embassy staff serving at the Croughton annex in respect of acts outside their official duties, not just administrative and technical staff.
Thirdly, the revised arrangements contain a further and new waiver in respect of inviolability. The Vienna convention on diplomatic relations not only provides for immunity from jurisdiction, but also provides for the separate privilege of inviolability, including complete protection from arrest and detention. The earlier Croughton arrangements contained no waiver of inviolability. This is addressed in the revised arrangements.
I am therefore pleased to report to the House that we have secured the agreement of the US so that the Croughton arrangements could not in future be used in the same way as in the tragic case of Harry Dunn. These changes took effect by way of an exchange of notes on 20 July.
Separately, we have continued to press the US on the need to improve road safety at RAF Croughton. I welcome the steps taken by the US base commander to extend mandatory requirements for driving training and instruction for all US staff on the base, and the improvement of road signage within the base and vehicles of staff to remind them to drive on the left.
I welcome the action of local authorities to add added extra signage outside the base to remind drivers to drive on the left.
I am pleased to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has launched a safety review of roads around the 10 US visiting forces (USVF) bases in England. This entails working with the Ministry of Defence, Highways England and respective police and local authorities—in the case of Croughton, the Northamptonshire police and South Northamptonshire Council.
We have the deepest sympathy for Harry Dunn’s family. No family should have to experience what they have gone through and I recognise that these changes will not bring Harry back. However, I hope that the knowledge that the Croughton arrangements have been revised and that a family in their position would now see justice done brings some small measure of comfort.
[HCWS419]
Hong Kong: British National (Overseas) Visa and Suspension of Extradition Treaty
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The decision of the Chinese Government to impose its national security legislation on Hong Kong is a matter of deep regret to this Government. This legislation and its strict implementation constitutes a clear breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration, undermining the “one country, two systems” framework. It cannot be ignored.
I set out here the Government’s plans for a new Hong Kong British national (overseas) (BN(O)) visa and for the suspension of our extradition treaty with Hong Kong.
Hong Kong BN(O) Visa
Before the handover of the UK’s responsibilities for Hong Kong, we created the British national (overseas) (BN(O)) nationality status, which was opened to people in Hong Kong, through a registration process, to those who had British dependent territories citizenship. This status recognised the special and enduring ties the UK has with those people as a result of our role in Hong Kong before 1997. Now that China through its actions has changed the circumstances that BN(O) citizens find themselves in, it is right that we should change the entitlements that are attached to BN(O) status. I have decided to significantly improve those entitlements, to reassure BN(O) citizens that they have options to live in the UK if they decide that is an appropriate choice for them.
Today I am laying before the House a Command Paper (CP 280) providing further detail on a new bespoke Hong Kong BN(O) visa, covering eligibility, conditions and entitlements, the application process, timing, the position for BN(O) citizens in the UK, and arrangements for BN(O) citizens arriving at the border.
BN(O) citizens in Hong Kong are in a unique position, which is why I have designed a policy that is specific to them in the wider immigration system. It will not set a precedent. It is a proportionate response to the situation that has arisen. The UK is entitled to decide on the rights attaching to BN(O) status, which it has previously conferred, and that is what I am doing with these changes.
My offer to BN(O) citizens is therefore a very generous one. There will be no skills tests or minimum income requirements, economic needs tests or caps on numbers. I am giving BN(O) citizens the opportunity to acquire full British citizenship. They do not need to have a job before coming to the UK—they can look for work once here. They may bring their immediate dependants, including non-BN(O) citizens.
At the same time, it is not an unconditional offer. BN(O) citizens will need to support themselves independently while living in the UK; they must meet strict criminality checks and stay of good character; they will need to pay visa fees, the immigration health surcharge and, if they subsequently apply for citizenship after they become settled, the fee and meet the criteria. These are reasonable things to ask of BN(O) citizens, and BN(O) citizens will need to ask themselves whether coming to the UK to put down roots here is the right choice for them. It is a choice I am making available and I welcome warmly all those who decide to take it.
We are planning to open the Hong Kong BN(O) visa for applications from January 2021. BN(O) citizens do not need to hold a BN(O) passport in order to apply for the visa—so there is no need to apply for or renew a BN(O) passport specifically for this purpose. All BN(O) citizens will need a visa to be able to settle in the UK.
We understand there will be cases where the children of BN(O) citizens will not normally be eligible because they were born after 1997 (so are not BN(O) citizens) and are over 18 so they would not normally be considered as a dependant in the UK’s immigration system. Therefore, in compelling and compassionate circumstances, and where applications are made as a family unit, we will use discretion to grant a visa to the children of BN(O) citizens who fall into this category and who are still dependent on the BN(O) citizen.
If the above does not apply then the existing youth mobility scheme is open to people in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 30, with 1,000 places currently available each year. Individuals from Hong Kong will also be able to apply to come to the UK under the terms of the UK’s new points-based system, which will enable individuals to come to the UK in a wider range of professions and at a lower general salary threshold than in the past.
The Home Office looks forward to receiving applications for this visa.
Extradition
The imposition of new national security legislation has significantly changed the assumptions underpinning the 1998 agreement for the surrender of fugitive offenders, our extradition treaty with Hong Kong. The Government remain especially concerned about articles 55 to 59 of the law, which could give mainland authorities the ability to assume jurisdiction over certain cases and try those cases in Chinese courts.
The national security law provides no legal or judicial safeguards in such cases. The decision can be made by the mainland authorities with no reference to the Hong Kong Government. Other than access to a lawyer, there are no legal or judicial safeguards in such cases and mainland systems of investigation, trial and punishment, about which the international community has long standing concerns, would apply. If China applies that legislation extraterritorially, it will pose a risk not only to Hong Kong residents who travel abroad, but potentially to British and other nationals travelling into Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Department of Justice has therefore been notified of our intention to suspend the extradition treaty, immediately and indefinitely, until the UK is sufficiently assured that the new National Security Agency established by China in Hong Kong will not be able to initiate extradition requests to the UK, that extradition requests will not be sent in relation to newly created offences under the national security law; and that people extradited from the UK could never be transferred from Hong Kong to mainland China without the UK’s explicit consent.
The suspension will protect those resident in the UK, including those who may soon be here by virtue of the new immigration route, from unwarranted pursuit through the provisions of the extradition treaty.
[HCWS421]
Independent Office for Police Conduct: Annual Report and Accounts
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am today, along with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Jesse Norman, publishing the 2019-20 annual report and accounts for the Independent Office for Police Conduct [HC 511]. This will be laid before the House and published on www.gov.uk. The report will also be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS423]
Police and Crime Commissioner Model: Review
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I wish to set out to the House details of a review into the role of police and crime commissioners.
The Government’s manifesto committed to strengthening the accountability of PCCs and expanding their role. Police and crime commissioners were introduced in 2012 to give the public a direct say over policing in their area. Since coming into post, they have brought real local accountability to policing and are working to give local communities a stronger voice.
After eight years, it is right that we step back and consider how we can continue to evolve the PCC model. It is important that PCCs are strong, visible leaders in the fight against crime and have the legitimacy and tools to hold their police forces to account effectively.
To deliver this commitment, I am today announcing a two-part internal review into the role of PCCs.
Part 1 will commence in late July and report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself by October 2020. It will be focused on changes required to strengthen the model, which, where possible, can be delivered ahead of the 2021 PCC elections. In particular, it will consider how to strengthen the accountability, resilience, legitimacy and scrutiny mechanisms of the existing model to drive up standards; identify and share best practice across the sector; and examine the effectiveness of the relationship between PCCs and chief constables and the checks and balances currently in place.
We will also use part 1 of the review to help us map out our longer-term ambition for the expansion of the PCC role. In relation to fire, the Government are clear that further reform of fire and rescue services is required in order to respond to the recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and to build on the findings from Sir Tom Winsor’s state of fire and rescue report, both of which demonstrate the clear challenges and improvements required in professionalism, people and governance. The review will consider further options and opportunities to strengthen fire governance and accountability, drawing on the lessons from the first cycle of fire governance transfers to PCCs.
The review will also be fully aligned with the Government’s commitment to expand the benefits of devolution across England through the local recovery and devolution White Paper. Mayors of combined authorities should be powerful local figures with the ability to drive public safety, as well as economic growth and local recovery. We plan to develop the role of PCCs with that longer-term trajectory in mind, building on the models in London and Greater Manchester.
I would like to be clear that neither part 1 nor part 2 of the review will consider a wholly new governance model for policing or examine the 43 police force model.
An advisory group will support part 1 of the review, comprising senior external stakeholders with expertise in the policing and fire sectors. It will also be important that the public’s views on those who represent them in policing are heard and the review team will seek to engage a sample of citizens and local and national victims’ groups as appropriate.
Part 2 of the review will commence after the 2021 elections and will allow us to consider further ways to strengthen and expand the role of PCCs, including the role PCCs play in tackling reoffending to help reduce crime. It will focus on longer-term reforms and the potential for wider efficiencies to be made within the system with a view to implementation ahead of the 2024 elections.
I will place a copy of the terms of reference for part 1 of the review in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS416]
UK Anti-corruption Strategy: Year 2
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
Today, I am publishing the second annual update on the UK anti-corruption strategy 2017-22. The Government are committed to providing an annual written update to Parliament on progress.
The UK anti-corruption strategy provides a framework to guide Government anti-corruption policies and actions. This update sets out the significant progress that the UK has made on implementing many of the commitments of the anti-corruption strategy during 2019, while recognising that a more challenging global environment has led to some areas of more limited progress. Corruption undermines our national security and prosperity. It corrodes trust in our institutions and threatens our borders. Without strong anti-corruption measures it is harder for British businesses to compete in the new and emerging markets we are starting to foster.
The year 2 update demonstrates that the Government are determined to deliver on their commitment to combat corruption in order to keep our citizens safe, to help secure a more prosperous society and to strengthen trust in our domestic and international institutions. The unprecedented challenge posed by covid-19 only heightens the relevance and urgency of this activity. The Government will continue to combat corruption and to promote integrity and transparency at home and overseas, working with international allies and through multilateral institutions to address existing and emerging threats, raise standards and promote collective action.
I have written to the devolved Administrations as the update is of direct interest to them.
A copy of the year 2 update report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS420]
Affordable Homes Guarantee Scheme 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
Today, I am laying before Parliament a departmental minute setting out the details of a contingent liability that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government intends to incur under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012. The contingent liability will be created by a new £3 billion affordable homes guarantee scheme.
The new affordable homes guarantee scheme—announced at spring statement 2019—will be delivered by a delivery partner on behalf of the Ministry under the oversight of Homes England. The delivery partner is being appointed through a fair, open and competitive procurement process, and we have appointed a preferred bidder with whom we will agree the detailed operational arrangements. We plan on awarding the contract over the coming weeks and for the scheme to be open for business by the end of the year. In delivering the scheme, the delivery partner will raise capital from bond market investors and on-lend the proceeds to registered providers of affordable housing in England. The Ministry will guarantee both the proceeds to bond investors and payments by borrowers to the issuing entity.
Through the scheme, the Government will boost investment in providers of affordable housing and support the delivery of a significant number of new affordable homes for those whose housing needs are not currently met by the market.
[HCWS424]
Machinery of Government: Data Use
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government change.
Government use of data
Responsibility for Government use of data has transferred from the Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) to the Cabinet Office. DCMS will retain responsibility for data policy for the economy and society. This change will help ensure that Government data is used most effectively to drive policy making and service delivery. The change is effective immediately.
[HCWS417]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 22nd July 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-R-I(Corrected-II) Marshalled list for Report - (15 Jul 2020)
Retirement of a Member: Baroness Hanham
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should next like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her very much-valued service to the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: UN Sustainable Development Goals
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.] It is clear, however, that Covid-19 poses yet further challenges to reaching the sustainable development goals by 2030 and that urgent action to accelerate progress is required. The UK is committed to this aim. To date, we have provided £769 million of UK aid to the international response and we are co-leading work through the UN Financing for Development work stream on sustainable recovery.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this pandemic has proved the importance of the global goals. Sadly, last year’s Voluntary National Review was evidence that the SDGs were not prioritised by the top level of government, despite David Cameron’s early leadership role in their establishment. What practical and institutional steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that the SDGs are at the centre of their plans to “build back better” at home and internationally post Covid?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the sustainable development goals remain central to the Government’s plans, both internationally and domestically. We remain strongly committed to responding to Covid-19 and, in parallel, it is of course important to consider how we will recover. The SDGs are an important lens to help shape policies that will help us build back better from Covid-19 both here in the UK and in our international work.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in what ways are the UK Government ensuring that their rebuilding and recovery efforts are guided by local partners and in line with the national SDG strategy, including working with the private sector globally?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, it is of course important both that we work with the private sector and that we champion localised action as well. We work very closely with front-line responders and southern women’s rights organisations; we know that those people are best placed to ensure that the response is informed by the voices and needs of those being affected.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
Now that the Department for International Development has been scrapped, which Minister and which department are responsible, and ultimately accountable, for the UK’s delivery of the sustainable development goals?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, the department is being merged to form the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The SDGs will remain at the centre of that department and the Cabinet Minister with ultimate responsibility for the SDGs is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
As part of our commitment to achieving the SDGs, Her Majesty’s Government have signed up to eradicate extreme poverty for all people, including those in the UK, and to reduce by at least half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions, according to national definitions. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to developing the Social Metrics Commission measure of poverty as the UK’s measure but, given that the officials undertaking the work have been deployed to the front line as part of our Covid response, can my noble friend the Minister tell me when work will resume and, when it does, what the strategy will be for halving the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to these national definitions?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend says, due to the current circumstances, work to develop experimental statistics has been suspended. DWP’s current focus is on supporting people financially in these unprecedented times. In the current uncertain climate, I am afraid that I am unable to provide my noble friend with a date for when this work will continue. It will happen only when we are able to do so and are sure that benefit payments and support to the vulnerable will not be put at risk.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, the global devastation caused by Covid-19 tells us that we must redouble our efforts to deliver the SDGs. This will require vision, finance and open and transparent collaboration between Governments and stakeholders, both public and private. Why are we dismembering the one department within government that is closest to those requirements? How will our experience be any different from Australia’s, where a similar merger led to a loss of over 2,000 years-worth of experience?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, as I said, the UK remains committed to the SDGs and to the underpinning pledge to leave no one behind as we strive to achieve them. The Prime Minister said in his statement to the UN high-level event on financing for development at the end of May that, following Covid-19, there is every need for us to work together to advance shared international objectives, including the SDGs. The SDGs will therefore remain central to the new department’s mission.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, given that Covid-19 has exacerbated gender inequality, pushing the rights of women and girls backwards, how will we ensure that more girls across the world are able not only to go to school but to stay in education at secondary level? Without girls’ education, SDG 5 will be impossible to achieve.
Baroness Sugg [V]
I completely agree with my noble friend. We know that we will not achieve all the goals without strong action on gender equality, and women and girls are key to their success. We absolutely agree on the importance of girls’ education. The Prime Minister and the department champion the right of every girl to 12 years of quality education.
Lord Crisp (CB) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has dramatically demonstrated the importance of having strong health systems everywhere in the world. In that context, what assessment have the Government made of progress towards universal health coverage—part of goal 3—and will they increase their support for achieving universal health coverage?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, the weakness of developing countries’ health systems is one of the biggest risks of the global impact and spread of Covid-19. Equitable, resilient and sustainable systems for health are the foundation for meeting all health needs and preparedness for future health threats. Working towards universal health coverage is more important than ever, given the increased barriers to, and needs for, accessible healthcare. The Government will continue to support access to universal health coverage.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when, as we all hope, a vaccine to deal with this scourge becomes available, what plans are in place to ensure that adequate supplies of the vaccine are getting to the most needy in the Third World?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, a globally accessible and affordable vaccine is, of course, needed to end the pandemic; we are working very closely with organisations such as the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi. The noble Lord will know that recently we hosted the Gavi replenishment conference. We will work with the WHO on its ACT Accelerator and with partners across the globe to make sure that, if and when a vaccine is found, it is accessible to all.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
In his Statement announcing the incorporation of DfID into the Foreign Office, the Prime Minister complained:
“We give as much aid to Zambia as we do to Ukraine … and we give 10 times as much aid to Tanzania as we do to … the western Balkans”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/20; cols. 666-7.]
At a time when the number of those facing food insecurity and consequent health vulnerability is likely to double, according to UNDP, is it right to think of taking money from sub-Saharan Africa and giving it to middle-income countries which have been well supported by the EU and aided by the UK contribution to the EU budget?
Baroness Sugg [V]
The noble Lord is right to highlight the issue of food insecurity. Pre-existing levels, before Covid-19, were historically high and the impacts of Covid-19 restrictions on trading and supply chains are likely to increase food insecurity. That is why we are working very closely with the World Food Programme and UNICEF to ensure supply chains for food supplies and life-saving treatment for acute malnutrition.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, now that Covid-19 is affecting earning power, health and access to education worldwide, it is obvious that many girls in developing countries may not get a quality education, which will affect the SDGs. What plans do the Government have to meet their 2019 pledge of ensuring 12 years of education for more than 12 million children, half of them girls?
Baroness Sugg [V]
My Lords, the Covid-19 crisis has had an incredibly negative impact on the education of millions of children—at least 1.5 billion children in more than 150 countries were out of school at its height. We are working to ensure that we are pivoting our existing programmes to allow remote learning, through radio and television programmes. The important thing is to make sure that all pupils, especially girls, return to schools as and when they reopen. We know that children outside school are at risk of child marriage and violence, so the important thing is to get girls back into school and then ensure that we are doing more to deliver 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Schools: Arts Teaching
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support is planned for the teaching of arts and other creative subjects in schools (1) online, and (2) in classrooms, as the restrictions in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic are lifted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the department is committed to high-quality education for all pupils during this difficult time, including in the arts and other creative subjects. We have introduced several initiatives for schools and parents, including signposting to a range of online resources, including BBC Education, the Oak National Academy and other professional organisations, such as Music Mark and the National Society for Education in Art and Design. On 2 July, the department published detailed guidance to support the return to full-time education in September.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, there is considerable concern that so-called core subjects will be prioritised in the autumn and arts subjects sidelined, with particular worries about subjects studied in year 10—a worry further fuelled by the comments of the CEO of the Harris Federation. Will the Government ensure that, come September, a broad and balanced curriculum will mean precisely that from the off, and that students will have a wide GCSE choice, including arts and design subjects? Does the Minister agree that arts in schools are currently urgently needed to play a central role in the country’s mental recovery from Covid?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I concur with the noble Earl that arts, PE et cetera, are vital to the well-being and recovery not just of children but of adults. Yes, the guidance makes clear that schools should return to a broad and balanced curriculum, with some flexibility, though, for teachers in relation to how pupils recover in the core subjects. Key stage 4 students should be expected to continue to study all their examination subjects. However, there may be exceptional circumstances where it is best that a pupil is not entered for the full range that they were intending to study next year, but we leave that matter with school teachers. As I say, it is exceptional: the noble Earl will be aware that Ofsted will begin visiting schools again in September, and the breadth of the curriculum is one of the matters it will be discussing collaboratively with schools.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]
I declare my chairmanship of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, which sustains and supports 48 university technical colleges. I am afraid that I do not share the Minister’s optimism. There is a real danger that in GCSEs next year the arts and cultural subjects are likely to be dropped or made second rate—indeed, the advice from Ofqual and examining boards is to focus just on eight academic subjects. This is extremely disadvantageous, because these subjects are popular with disadvantaged and less gifted children and should be available. The Government should make sure that they are preserved. Since 2010, these subjects have dropped by 25% to 30%. What has happened to the broad-based curriculum I introduced in the 1980s?
Baroness Berridge
The broad base is now the broad and balanced curriculum, which was introduced as the new Ofsted framework last September. My noble friend is correct that we want to see the broad curriculum taught from September. We are also aware that extra-curricular use of arts and music is important for arts subjects, for which we fund a number of initiatives, including the essential life skills course for opportunity areas, which focuses on extra-curricular activities for disadvantaged children in those areas.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is absolutely right. Will the national plan, which expires in 2020, be continued and funded? Does the Minister agree that the acquiring of creative knowledge—the technique to play an instrument or sing—requires constant practice, which has of course been unavoidably broken? We need to replenish the minds and muscles of the young.
Baroness Berridge
I assure the noble Lord that the national plan introduced in 2011 will be refreshed. Unfortunately, due to Covid, that and the development of the model curriculum for key stage 1 to 3 had to be put on hold. As someone who has recently taken up a musical instrument, I can only agree that practice is important. In our guidance issued at the beginning of the month, we have given flexibility to the curriculum that will enable not just core content in maths but core skills in music teaching.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Baroness Bakewell. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
In a reply to my Written Question on arts subjects in schools, the Minister said that all
“maintained schools are required to teach the full National Curriculum, including art and design, and music”
and creative subjects, while, as she knows, academies do not have to do this. Why is this? If she is keen to have a broad and balanced curriculum that provides opportunities for creative subjects for all pupils, surely this needs to be changed.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that teaching the national curriculum is not compulsory in the academies sector. However, Ofsted inspects all maintained and academy schools to the same standard of the broad and balanced curriculum; its inspection framework now includes whether children’s cultural capital is being improved. Ofsted judges all schools to the same standard.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, studies have shown that the arts can improve young people’s cognitive abilities and contribute to raising the—[Inaudible.]—particularly for children from lower-income backgrounds. The Secretary of State for Education seems to agree; two weeks ago he said that
“it is important that the curriculum is full, broad and balanced and includes the arts and humanities, sports and so much else”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/20; col. 541.]
The guidance which the Minister just referred to contains similar aspirations. Can she explain how the Secretary of State believes this can be achieved while the Government maintain their policy of driving up the number of pupils sitting EBacc subjects, which narrow the curriculum?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I hope I have got the tenor of the question—it was a bit difficult to hear. Although there have been fluctuations in the take-up of arts subjects at GCSE and A-level, over the last 10 years they have remained broadly stable. Any decrease in numbers was present before 2010, so it is not correct to link those fluctuations to the introduction of the EBacc. As I said, Ofsted inspects against a broad and balanced curriculum. It is important to remember that, although for students who want to specialise in arts subjects it is important to take the examinations, we fund specific initiatives to make sure that arts and music activities in particular are part of extra-curricular education for many more students than take examinations in those subjects.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
Will my noble friend consider establishing an innovation fund for charities to support the adaptations the charity sector in education will need to make to provide specialist services to support the teaching of arts subjects, so that vulnerable children and young people can benefit from the extensive support which could now be unleashed by the charitable sector, focusing on digital innovations and access as we emerge from the crisis?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, in relation to music, one of the things in establishing the national plan and the hubs was that they would help in music practitioner training. An important thing we have seen in looking at the subjects undertaken is that art and design has become more popular over the last 10 years. However, we recognise—and fund—an enormous amount of initiatives, such as the National Youth Orchestra, to give young people opportunities to participate.
Baroness Bull (CB) [V]
My Lords, dance is perhaps unique in the curriculum as it provides intellectual, emotional, social and physical education in a single subject. It is therefore particularly well placed to address the negative impacts of lockdown on children’s emotional and social skills, mental well-being and physical fitness. Can the Minister say why the published guidance makes no reference at all to dance? When can schools expect to receive guidance on specific safety measures related to the teaching of dance in or alongside the curriculum?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, dance is included in PE, which we have promoted particularly in primary education through the £320 million PE premium. However, the noble Baroness is correct that dance provides young people with emotional and physical exercise. She will be aware that for young people and adults we give dance and drama awards to those who are exceptionally talented, like the noble Baroness, so that they can go on to study at specialist institutions.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register. The initial focus for school leaders in September must be the well-being of children. Studying music is known to improve health and well-being as well as attainment. Given the restrictions currently in place on choirs and instrument lessons, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked, when will the Government renew the national plan for music education and show how we can resume the music education to which all pupils are entitled?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, unfortunately I do not have a timeframe for when the national plan will be refreshed. Although the noble Lord is correct that there is mention in the guidance about not singing or playing wind or brass in larger groups, there is a hierarchy of controls to enable those activities to take place in smaller groups, such as doing it outside, making sure that shared instruments are disinfected, et cetera. When the £1.57 billion to support the arts sector was announced, scientific research was also commissioned from Imperial College London and other institutions so that we could understand more about the risks of these activities.
Churches: Reopening of Buildings
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Greenhalgh on 26 May (HL4184), what discussions they have had with (1) the Church of England, (2) the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and (3) other Churches, about the reopening of church buildings for private devotional prayer and public worship.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The Government have worked closely with all major faiths in England through the places of worship task force and regular faith round tables with leaders and representatives. These include Christian representatives from the main denominations. Our engagement has covered a wide variety of issues relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and plans to reopen places of worship. Individual prayer and communal worship are now both permitted.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, since social distancing could have been arranged so easily from the outset, was it really necessary to lock up all our churches for the first time since Pope Innocent III ordered their closure 800 years ago, with the Church of England going beyond official government guidance initially by banning private prayer in churches and forbidding its clergy to enter them even on their own? Is my noble friend able to tell the House how much financial support the Government have so far provided to assist the survival of our historic places of worship? Salisbury Cathedral, which is celebrating its 800th anniversary this year, was expecting some £2.2 million from visitors; it will be lucky to get £200,000. Finally, may I press my noble friend again on the urgent need for explicit guidance on the safe resumption of choral singing? The great composer John Rutter said recently:
“Some two million people in the UK engage in choral singing, and they are desperately missing this pillar of our national life.”
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, the decision to close places of worship was not taken lightly, but it was in response to the fact that the virus is highly contagious, particularly in areas where people gather indoors. In recent months, historic places of worship have been able to apply for grants from Historic England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund of some £55 million, and listed places of worship can get around £200 million for heritage construction projects. I refer to the DCMS guidance on my noble friend’s third point.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, many of our churches and cathedrals are desperate to enable small groups of singers, perhaps four singers standing five metres apart from each other. Is there any possibility that that will be allowed soon? Secondly, will the Minister tell the House whether there are any plans for the compulsory wearing of face masks in places of worship?
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, I will have to write on the policy regarding face masks in places of worship. We have announced that indoor musical performances to a live audience are expected to resume after 1 August, subject to a successful completion of pilots and provided that prevalence remains at around or below current levels.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
Will my noble friend join me in congratulating the leaders of our religious faith communities on the way they have, despite restrictions, through innovation and enterprise, managed to find ways to allow worship to continue through the Covid crisis, especially by employing virtual networks and indeed by co-operating to maintain the spiritual health of the nation?
Lord Greenhalgh
I certainly will. The move by all faith communities towards online worship has been simply incredible. In fact, it has enabled them to reach further into communities and it is to be commended.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, discussions with the Minister confirm that the Government are concerned with the safety of all faiths. The attached risks to BAME communities are greater and there are important differences in the manner of worship, proximity of worshippers and layout of buildings. Will the Minister confirm that all these factors should be considered in government advice?
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, the government advice as published provides a framework for places of worship, including gurdwaras, to open safely, and of course it is down to local decision-making to work within that framework.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab) [V]
My Lords, churches serve many vital and often underrecognised purposes across our communities, which includes providing support to members of both their congregations and the wider community through food banks, childcare services and bereavement support, to name but a few, as well as providing both spiritual and practical support. Has the Minister engaged with churches of all faiths to understand what practical support they require to continue that important work?
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, we have engaged with a series of virtual round tables, and the noble Lord is absolutely right that the response during the pandemic and the support for the vulnerable by all faith communities has been simply remarkable. I have also provided some input into a review that has been started by Danny Kruger MP to look into how that can continue during the recovery phase of the pandemic.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
I join the tribute to those who helped organise the online worship and thank all those who held Zoom services and fellowships for all they have done. There must be hundreds of them throughout the United Kingdom. However, I also thank the broadcasting authorities, S4C in Wales and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which have been able to help people, especially older people, who are confined to their homes. This has made it so important that the licence fee for those over 70 be also now deferred. Without that companion of the television set, they would have been lost.
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, I note the point raised around the licence fee and the importance of the television set in people’s lives but also recognise, as I said before, the great moves and strides for online engagement within faith communities.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the importance of the voluntary and third sector in dealing with the Covid crisis, I am delighted to hear my noble friend tell us of his involvement in the faith groups round table. However, in future, will more of a government co-ordination effort be made in terms of fully utilising the resources, both human and financial, as well as geographical and infrastructural, of all faiths throughout the UK to ensure that there is less of an ad hoc approach in local communities but a unified support of the most vulnerable?
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, we need to make better sense of how government can work beyond departments, and I have engaged with my colleague my noble friend Lady Barran in DCMS in that endeavour, and in the review conducted by Danny Kruger I have made representations precisely along those lines.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a Church of England priest, and I was therefore delighted when churches could reopen for private prayer. However, I found out because a Minister tweeted the announcement at 10 o’clock on a Saturday night. We got a week’s notice, but there was not enough time for the guidance to come out. That was not very helpful. Preparing to reopen safely was tough enough for my church, which is blessed with a team of staff, but lots of churches rely just on volunteers. I gently ask the Minister whether it would be possible for him to reassure us that the Government will try to give more notice of future changes.
Lord Greenhalgh
We recognise that the communication could have been better around individual prayer. I think that the guidance was shared with faith leaders in the places of worship round table some days in advance, so when we moved to communal worship, communication improved. However, I note the noble Baroness’s points.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the importance of the message could well do with underlining. Does the Minister agree, without reservation, that the United Kingdom is a multi-religious country and that great care needs to be taken to respect all religions on all occasions, particularly when being referred to in your Lordships’ Chamber? That is equally applicable to churches, mosques and synagogues, to name but a few, for we are all servants of God.
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree, which is why the faith round tables engaged with leaders of all our major faiths and those of the belief groups, recognising the importance of engaging with everyone.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords have been quite right to point to the way in which various religious groups have managed to keep their congregations together and to outreach in the wider community, particularly to the vulnerable. As one local religious organiser said to me, in many ways they have been able to go out further than was possible before the outbreak. What will the Government do to help co-ordinate and ensure that this level of contact with the vulnerable is kept up?
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, that is precisely the point of the review being conducted by Danny Kruger MP to look at how we can sustain the tremendous effort during the pandemic into the recovery phase; I will not pre-empt his report.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Parliament: Restoration and Renewal Project
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter from the Prime Minister to the Chief Executive of the Sponsor Body and Chief Executive Designate for the Delivery Authority for the Houses of Parliament Restoration and Renewal Project on 15 July, what their proposals are for the relocation of both Houses of Parliament during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my Answer on this last Monday, the location of Parliament is a matter for Parliament. Both Houses will need to review their sitting arrangements as part of restoration and renewal. The Government are keen to ensure that the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster delivers best value for money and asked the sponsor body to advise Parliament on a range of options and consider decant locations outside London in its strategic review. The Government are not prejudging any particular outcome.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, do the Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that after restoration and renewal is complete, both Houses will continue to sit in the Palace of Westminster as their permanent home? Bearing in mind that only one bicameral legislature in the world, that of the Ivory Coast—we owe that information to the Lord Speaker—has Chambers in different geographical locations, does the Minister accept that it makes no constitutional or economic sense to remove either or both Chambers to any other city within the UK for just a few years?
Lord True
My Lords, in the original debates on this subject, my noble friend rightly pointed to the heritage nature of this great Palace of Westminster, which I think we all hold dear. Indeed, heritage is one of the aspects referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter. So far as how the Houses will operate when decant—if decant—takes place, that is a matter for them. I would simply say that the broad and generous acres of Yorkshire are not in another continent.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
My Lords, any suggestion about a move should have been made to the Speaker and the Lord Speaker, not in a letter to non-parliamentarians. I ask the Minister to remind the Prime Minister that he is not a president but is accountable to Parliament, which needs to be located close by so that the Prime Minister and Ministers can report to Parliament, no matter how much he dislikes having to do so. This is the nature of our democracy, and Parliament will hold him to it.
Lord True
My Lords, the sponsor body is independent: that was the decision of your Lordships’ House and of the other place. The strategic review was announced in May by the sponsor body and it is for it to progress as it wishes. It is open to every Member of Parliament, not just the Prime Minister, to put forward their views to the sponsor body.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister’s letter proposing that both Houses of Parliament might relocate to York had already been sent when the Minister answered questions on this on 15 July, yet he made no reference to it in any of his replies. Was that because he was not aware of the letter or because he chose not to inform this House that the Commons might also be moved?
On 9 July, in answering questions on the ISC report on Russia, he described suggestions that the Conservative Party had received large sums from Russian donors as “wild charges”. Now that several articles in the quality press and the published ISC report have substantiated that such sums have been accepted by the Conservatives, will he withdraw that reply?
Lord True
My Lords, I think the second part of the noble Lord’s question is germane to the Question that follows; I am not sure if he has a chance to ask a question on that. The Conservative Party’s donations are declared, permissible and controlled. On the first part of his question, I stand by every word I used last week.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I hope our democratic machinery will get a move on in taking a decision about relocation and will take a wholly common-sense view on what is appropriate, which I personally believe is to stay in Westminster. The great cities of this country have an important local leadership role and a role liaising with Westminster, but I do not think it makes any great sense for them to be considered as a location for our Houses of Parliament. The Minister is not necessarily in a position to support that, but I would be interested in his personal views.
Lord True
My Lords, giving personal views from this Dispatch Box is probably not the wisest thing. On the timescale, again, the sponsor body is independent. It will conduct its review on the timescale it has set out, but I understand that it expects and hopes to report this autumn.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Earl of Devon was first summoned to Shrewsbury, so I am not averse to sitting elsewhere, but I am very concerned about delay. We passed the restoration and renewal Act last autumn with an urgent mandate to get to work immediately to save the Palace. Nowhere in the Act is the sponsor body empowered to second-guess that mandate. Under what authority is the sponsor body conducting its strategic review, and why is it not complying with its obligation to restore this key national heritage?
Lord True
My Lords, again, the sponsor body is independent. It was obliged under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act, which your Lordships assented to, to prepare a strategy on this and to consult Members of each House of Parliament. That was published in May and, as I said, I hope and understand that the sponsor body will report in the autumn, but I take note of what the noble Earl said.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl because the situation is now confusing in terms of its accountability. Options seem to be coming out of No. 10 like chaff from an aircraft under missile attack. But given that we are in the season for crackpot ideas and bearing in mind that the furthest point from the sea in our great maritime nation is Coton in the Elms in Derbyshire at 45 miles, and that a large number of cruise ships that are now lying idle may in the future be available at very cheap rates, could not both Houses embark on a ship and operate from it while visiting all parts of our islands? I have raised this idea before on the Floor of the House and the Minister replying said that it would be looked at. Has it?
Lord True
My Lords, I will have to take advice on the matter in order to respond to the noble Lord. Options coming out like chaff will have varying effects, as he will know. I repeat that this is a matter for the exclusive cognisance of your Lordships’ House and, in the last resort, of the other place.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, since the origin of the idea to move to York came from No. 10, perhaps we should carry on up to Barnard Castle. In the meantime, the real wake-up call for this House is that for the past 20 years, the Conservative and Labour Benches have frustrated any real and radical reform of this House. I ask the Lord Speaker to call together the leaders of all parties to consider such a programme of radical reform. While I know that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, unless we are willing to reform ourselves, we will certainly be plucked and stuffed by that cabal in No. 10.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in the event that the Government should decide to move this House to another location against its will, would that require primary legislation and would the Minister propose to take such legislation through all its stages in this House?
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement by my noble friend the Minister that this is finally a matter for Parliament and not one for the Government to order. Knowing the obvious benefits of the two Houses working together in many fields, I hope that the Joint Committee which is investigating this matter recognises the importance of ensuring the closest possible co-location of the two Houses, and that in view of the problems caused by the pandemic, it seems quite unrealistic to try to move Parliament elsewhere in the country because it will be difficult enough to operate it even in our present locations.
Lord True
My Lords, a number of factors have been raised by noble Lords during our various exchanges of which I have taken careful note, and the considerations that my noble friend has put forward are among those. Indeed, they were alluded to in the Prime Minister’s letter, along with timelines, the effect on the work of Parliament and so on, which were specifically referred to.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Russia, published on 21 July.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia. We have been clear that Russia must desist from its attacks on the UK and our allies. We will be resolute in defending our country, democracy and values from any such hostile state activity. As set out in the Prime Minister’s Written Ministerial Statement of 21 July, yesterday the Government published a full response, and I commend it to the noble Lord.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister not accept that this report reveals a catalogue of confusion and indifference in dealing with the threats from Russia? Will the Government now task the intelligence agencies with learning from our past failings and producing a plan to tackle interference in our democratic processes and the penetration of British society by Russia? Will the Minister tell us when they will introduce the legislation that has been announced to strengthen our capability to deal with espionage and the illicit dealings of the Russian elite with its agents and enablers in the United Kingdom?
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions there, which no doubt we can return to. On the first point, I do not accept that there is a catastrophic failure, as he puts it. In 2017, the Government implemented the Russia strategy and established the cross-government Russia unit, which brings together diplomatic, intelligence and military capabilities to maximum effect. So far as foreign resources are concerned, illicit money is not welcome in this country.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is no wonder that trust in this Government and the Prime Minister is in decline. On 9 July, the Minister claimed that the Government
“always take proactive action to defend our democracy”—[Official Report, 9/7/20; col. 1213.]
against the threat of Kremlin interference. This report, its blocking and the predictable rejection of justified calls for an inquiry into interference in the EU referendum and the 2017 election show his assurance to have been worthless. My noble friend Lord Foulkes high- lighted the most important of the report’s several recommendations, but the Minister did not fully address his question. I respectfully ask if he can confirm which of the recommendations the Government will implement.
Lord True
My Lords, the Government have given a very full response to the inquiry. In the short time available, I cannot add further to the details of that response. As for the noble Lord’s question, it is the work of the intelligence and security agencies to assess any new evidence as it emerges; that is a continuing process. Given this long-standing approach, it is not necessary to hold a specific retrospective inquiry. If there were evidence available to be found, it would emerge through our existing processes.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, as a result of the report, is it not the case that the Minister and the Government are compelled to accept that the Government have been negligent of their responsibility to guard the democratic values of this country, that they delayed the publication of the report with fake news excuses so that it did not feature in the general election, and that the failure to allow a full-scale inquiry into Russian meddling will make it seem that the Government have something to hide?
Lord True
My Lords, I have said before that I do not accept the noble Lord opposite’s narrative about delay. The intelligence committee has been reformed in this Parliament; it has published the report and the Government have responded to it in detail at the first possible opportunity.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with Anders Fogh Rasmussen, speaking when he was Secretary-General of NATO, that
“Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with … environmental organizations working against shale gas … to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas”?
Will he agree to look into how much the debate on shale gas in the UK was distorted by Russian interference?
Lord Janvrin (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the committee in the last Parliament that produced this report. I am pleased to see that it has been recognised as a wake-up call to the Government about the dangers of the covert threat posed by the Russian state. Should there be a single government department responsible for countering hostile state activities in the United Kingdom, whether from Russia or any others, including against the integrity of our democratic processes?
Lord True
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and his work on the production of the report, which I have welcomed on behalf of the Government. It makes comments and recommendations about the management of activity within government, but I repeat that the Government’s coherent Russia strategy was established in 2017. Obviously, we always keep effective operations under advice.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
The report says that while Russia poses a “security threat”, including to democracy, the Government
“took their eye off the ball”,
failing to provide oversight or strategic direction, and had a surprising lack of curiosity over the impact of Russian activities. The report called for enhanced transparency, and the Government promptly suppressed the report. Given that the Government’s responsibility is to keep the country safe, can the Minister reassure the House that the Prime Minister will implement the report’s recommendations?
Lord True
My Lords, repeating the allegation that the Government suppressed a report that is not a government report does not make that allegation true. I repeat that the report has been published and the Government have responded in detail at the first possible opportunity. As for taking their eye off the ball, the Government have long recognised that there is an enduring and significant threat posed by Russia to the UK and its allies. That is why, to repeat what I said earlier, the Government implemented the Russia strategy in 2017.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the final 72 hours before the EU referendum in June 2016 there was extensive, disguised, unregulated and targeted digital campaign messaging. Ministers ignored this. Why? This occurred again last year, with shadowy Brexit-supporting groups spending hundreds of thousands of pounds and then disappearing. Ministers ignored this. Why? Given the detailed recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner more than a year ago, and now of both Commons and Lords Select Committees, that those responsible and paying for such political digital messages must be made to identify themselves, why have Ministers dragged their feet?
Lord True
My Lords, Ministers have not dragged their feet, and issues of electoral integrity are very much under consideration, as the noble Lord knows. Action will be taken in the course of this Parliament. On his central question, we have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU referendum.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]
Does the Minister agree that no one should be permitted to interfere in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom? For example, Jean-Claude Juncker had to be restrained by David Cameron from interfering in the 2016 referendum. As for Russian interference in the referendum, was the Minister influenced by a Russian, or did he manage to make up his own mind?
Lord True
My Lords, I was not influenced by any Russians. My noble friend touches on something which I beg your Lordships—and have done before—to hold in their mind. The decision to leave Europe was taken by millions upon millions of our fellow countrymen—twice. The result was not hatched in some dacha in Moscow.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]
Whatever else this report tells us, it seems clear that the United Kingdom’s democratic processes and political system are unacceptably vulnerable to malign Russian influence. It is further evidence that we live in an age when we cannot properly differentiate between war and peace. Many countries exist in a perpetual state of unarmed conflict with other countries, when mendacious activity below the level of formal warfare is the norm.
In the context of this year’s integrated review of diplomacy, defence and security, what reassurance can the Minister offer that the country has developed, or is developing, the capability not just to mitigate the effects of malign foreign activity, but deter them? An effective deterrent strategy must of course be based on the credibility of capability and the willingness to use it.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, further to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, does the Minister agree it is time the Government stopped passing round the job of defending our democracy from Russian disinformation campaigns like a hot potato, which has clearly been happening despite the 2017 Russia strategy, and make it clear who within government has responsibility for protecting the UK from hostile interference? Furthermore, Government should insist that the social media companies agree a protocol for decisive and quick action to remove foreign political influence and fake news from their platforms.
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a range of important matters, and I do not deny the importance of any of them. The Government keep all these factors in mind and are watchful. As I have said before, all our agencies are constantly assessing and seeking to deter the threats posed by hostile state activity.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
The Minister must understand that he does himself and the Government no favours by continuing to disrespect the House in the manner with which he answers—or fails to answer—questions. The Government and the noble Lord have repeatedly told us there is no evidence of “successful” interference in elections or referendums, but that is not the point. The evidence received by your Lordships’ Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee, and indeed the ISC report, made it clear that Russian disinformation is designed not necessarily to produce a particular result but to undermine faith in democratic institutions and democracy itself. That is wider and more insidious. Do the Government accept this is a real and present danger, and what will they do about it?
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to raise a point from the report that some Members of your Lordships’ House are, perhaps, influencers in this Russian debate. I am banned from going to Russia, but I have been to various meetings with Members of both Houses, and I regret to say that some noble Lords seem to be defending the indefensible—namely, the Putin regime. Could my noble friend ensure there is a closer investigation into one or two links that people have with the Putin regime?
Lord True
My Lords, all Members of the House will have noted the comments in the committee report in relation to your Lordships’ House. It is extremely important that we should all be on our guard against the activities of the Putin regime. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, has written to the appropriate committee of the House on the recommendations made in the report.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We are not able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rowe- Beddoe, and we have come to the end of the Private Notice Question.
House of Lords: Allowance
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That 1. The Resolution of the House of 6 May 2020 (House of Lords Allowance) shall have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect from 8 June 2020, as follows–
a) For paragraph 5, substitute–
“5. In respect of attendance at a physical sitting or virtual proceeding of this House Members should only be entitled to an allowance if–
a) they speak during the sitting or proceeding, or
b) they are otherwise necessary to the sitting or proceeding, or
c) they are on the Speaker’s List for the item of business and present when that business is taken (but that entitlement only arises to claim once in respect of that item).”; and
b) At the end, insert–
“7. Notwithstanding the previous Resolutions of the House, travel and related expenses can only be claimed by Members attending physically to whom paragraph 5 applies.”
2. The Resolution of the House of 6 May 2020 (House of Lords Allowance) (as amended) shall cease to have effect on 1 September 2020, and the Resolution of the House of 20 July 2010 (House of Lords Allowance) shall temporarily cease to have effect in respect of attendances after 1 September 2020.
3. Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 2 September 2020 as provided for below.
4. “Attendance” means virtual or physical attendance–
a) at a sitting or virtual proceeding of this House,
b) at a meeting or virtual meeting of a Committee of this House, or
c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.
5. In respect of virtual attendance at a sitting or proceeding of this House Members should only be entitled to an allowance if–
a) they speak during the sitting or proceeding, or
b) they are otherwise necessary to the sitting or proceeding, or
c) they are on the Speaker’s List for the item of business and present when that business is taken (and in that case, the entitlement is only to claim once in respect of that item).
6. In respect of attendance under paragraph (4)(b), only Members of that Committee, or Members authorised to attend a meeting of such a Committee by the Chair, should be entitled to claim an allowance.
7. The amount of the allowance payable to a Member should be–
a) £323, or
b) £162, if paragraph 5 applies or if the only attendance of the Member is to vote using the remote voting system pursuant to the Resolution of this House of 4 June 2020.
8. Members of this House specified in paragraph 3 may be entitled to a supplementary daily allowance for Parliamentary work as–
a) a designated spokesperson for the Official Opposition or the Liberal Democrat Party, or
b) the chair of such committee of the House, or such other body, as may be determined from time to time by the House of Lords Commission.
9. The maximum entitlements applicable for the purposes of paragraph 8 are–
a) 10 additional days per month (if paragraph 8(a) applies), and
b) 5 additional days per month (if paragraph 8(b) applies),
provided that for any month the total number of days claimed for does not exceed the total number of sitting days of the House in that month.
10. The provisions of this Resolution shall be applied in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, at its meeting last Thursday, the House of Lords Commission agreed on an updated set of proposals relating to the financial support available to Members to enable them to carry out out their parliamentary duties.
The Lord Speaker, the Senior Deputy Speaker, the leaders of the three main parties and the Cross-Bench Convenor are all members of the commission, as are the chairs of the services and finance committees, two Back-Benchers and two external Members. A summary of the proposals were sent to noble Lords on Friday, and the full details are in the Motion on the Order Paper. In short, if this Motion is agreed to, the current temporary arrangements, which have been in place since May, will, from September, be replaced by a further temporary system that will reflect the expectation and, I think, desire that many more noble Lords will attend and carry out their parliamentary duties here at Westminster, rather than remotely.
In recognition that some noble Lords will be unable or would prefer not to attend in person, but wish to contribute to our proceedings, the proposals maintain the current arrangements for those participating virtually. The commission believes that these proposals also better recognise the work carried out by the Opposition’s Front Benches and our Select Committee chairs. From September, committee chairs and designated opposition Front-Benchers will have access to a limited supplementary daily allowance.
The House authorities are working very hard to ensure that all Members who want to return in September can do so in a way that is compatible with the latest public health guidance, so that Parliament is a safe, Covid-secure working environment. The House authorities will update noble Lords on these plans before we rise for the summer.
This has been an unprecedented period. Although we can be proud that the House has adapted so quickly to significant challenges the current crisis has raised, and that so many noble Lords have been able to participate in our hybrid proceedings, it has certainly not been without its difficulties. In particular, we have had to make difficult decisions in relation to allowances, none of which has been taken lightly by members of the commission. We fully appreciate the concern and impact these have had on Members across the House. On behalf of the Commission, I thank all noble Lords for their forbearance and patience. We believe that the changes which will be brought into effect by this Motion represent a positive and clear step towards the return to normal we all want to see as soon as possible, and I hope noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received notice that the following noble Lords wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Shinkwin and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would prefer to hear from the Back Benchers before speaking. I am surprised to be called. Would it be in order for Back Benchers to speak and for me to speak after them?
The Deputy Speaker
That is fine. In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, every situation can teach us something. The experience of the last few months might have plunged some noble Lords into significant debt, but it is none the less valuable in the lessons that it teaches us as a self-regulating House. I think it is fair to say that the most important lesson is that we must avoid at all costs reinforcing the unfair perception that your Lordships’ House is the exclusive preserve of privilege and wealth. Diversity is our strongest defence against that charge, which is why we need to recognise that some noble Lords will inevitably have neither inherited nor acquired wealth but will have significant outgoings. That is normal and must be taken into account, and I thank the Lords Commission for doing so in its latest decision.
However, apart from the personal consequences of suddenly having very little income, it has been very unsettling to see such decision-making power wielded in secrecy and without any accountability to a parliamentary Chamber that is meant to be self-regulating. I therefore think that, to move forward, we need to get our own House in order by injecting some transparency and accountability into the system. Most importantly, we urgently need to strengthen the legitimacy of the Lords Commission in future by holding an election of its chair and deputy chair by the whole House, by holding open meetings of the Lords Commission, by ensuring advanced publication of Lords Commission papers, and by having a quarterly Lords Commission Question Time with its chair, held in the Chamber, as in the House of Commons.
I will close on this point. Specifically with regard to the position of the Clerk of the Parliaments, I know that I am not alone in being concerned that the postholder wields huge authority without any real accountability to the House. I therefore suggest that the contract for such a hugely important role should not be extended in future without it having been put to and agreed by the House first, and the details of the package, the job description and objectives having been made available in the Library a week before consideration.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I first praise the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for speaking out on issues that he has felt strongly about over recent weeks. It is never easy to talk about parliamentary allowances, because your words are capable of being distorted and you become a bit of a target. If he has opinions to provide to your Lordships’ Chamber, he should do so, and he is brave to speak out. I have different points to make, but I welcome his contribution.
I also thank the noble Baroness the Leader for her introduction, for making sure that the information for today was available early and for the supplementary information that has been provided this morning. I recognise that the last few months have been difficult for all concerned. I have praised the staff of the House before. They have done an outstanding job in difficult circumstances. But I also think that the Leader has steered us through these times in a responsible and admirable way.
I have two points, partly spurred on by the use of the word “temporary” to describe this second version of the temporary scheme that we are going through. That word was used to me in the spring of 2011 when I questioned the new allowances scheme. I was told that it was a temporary move to remove the abuses that had been taking place and bring in something that would be simple to administer, but that it would be reviewed quickly and we would return to overnight reimbursement in the near future.
That, of course, has not happened. If, over the nine years since, those Members who live in London or have property in London—I suspect that the vast majority in this House have either inherited that property or had it paid for by the state as Members of the House of Commons—have attended every sitting of this House since Easter 2011, they will have gained more than £200,000 from the change in the allowance system that was brought in, when the previous overnight allowance, which I think was about £160 to £170, was mopped into the daily allowance so that everybody in the House could claim it, not just those who actually had overnight costs from being in London.
This has happened in the same decade when every party leader, in the House of Commons and here, has expressed a desire to bring more people from more parts of the country, with different experiences and backgrounds, into your Lordships’ Chamber. At a time when that is the expressed aim, there is institutional discrimination against those Members who do not live in London and the south-east. That discrimination has never been tackled by the commission, successive Leaders or any of the political parties. I think that that is shameful. I have said it here before and I will say it again today.
I raise this today because we have an opportunity. I want to be positive rather than just negative about what has happened. There is an opportunity, given that these temporary arrangements have had to be put in place, to reduce the daily allowance for all Members and to reinstate some overnight allowance for those Members who have to travel from other parts of the country and do not own property in London. There must be an opportunity over these coming months, as we use this new temporary system, to make a change—to do the right thing. I ask the House of Lords Commission to give that serious consideration. The time is right. I think that it would suit the public mood, but it would also be the right thing to do, not only for the individuals concerned but for the diversity of this House and the attendance of Members from around the whole of the United Kingdom.
My second point is bit more specific. It is not far off some of the principles behind the points made by the previous speaker. I should perhaps say first of all that my comments on this in no way affect or change my ability to reclaim the legitimate travel costs that I have incurred in attending the Chamber physically over the last few weeks, because on each of those weeks I made a contribution in the Chamber and I will receive my full travel reimbursement, as is right and proper.
However, I am not happy at all about the situation where changes to the regulations and the interpretation of the travel allowance are being backdated. If someone has attended this Chamber over the past seven weeks but on the day was not able, for whatever reason, to go on the relevant Questions list, perhaps because they were not chosen by their whip, and they incurred legitimate travel costs to be here, if they were not on a list for the day or days they were here that week, they will not get the travel reimbursed, which they paid at the time assuming that that was okay.
I have raised this with the Clerk of the Parliaments, in correspondence with the Leaders and with the Lord Speaker. I think it is wrong that the travel allowance changes should be rigidly backdated. There should be some flexibility for anyone caught up in that situation. I am lucky and fortunate not to be in that position, but at least one or two Members of your Lordships’ House might be.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the commission spent many weeks and many meetings attempting to provide a new temporary system that would be fair to everyone; those who can attend, those who cannot attend, those who speak a lot and those who do not speak as often. This proved quite difficult to achieve, but after a very long and winding road, we produced a system which is as near as we could get it to satisfying all the legitimate requirements of Members of your Lordships’ House. It still has anomalies. Some people will still legitimately feel disadvantaged by it, but any system broadly based on our current one is bound to have anomalies, and we have minimised them. Therefore, I strongly support the Motion.
While I am happy with the allowance system, or as happy as I am ever likely to be with such a system, I am concerned about the plans for the physical operation, not only of the Chamber, but also of all the ancillary services, when we return in September. We are expecting a lot more people to be here and, as things stand, the House cannot accommodate us. There are plans, which we will hear about before we rise, showing some mitigations of the current, very strict requirements in your Lordships’ House, but I am concerned that the degree of rigour with which some of the restrictions are being applied in your Lordships’ House is completely out of kilter with what is happening in the country at large. I recognise that many Peers are older and more vulnerable, but we must look very carefully at all our practices to ensure that we get back, as far as possible, to a system whereby not only the allowances allow people to attend, but also that we allow people, when they get here, to operate as parliamentarians, the nature of which requires a lot of close personal interaction. We will have to look at this in September. For today, it is very important that we can give people certainty about the allowance system from September, so that they can plan what they will do in the autumn. This Motion will give them that degree of certainty.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, when the Minister introduced this, she made it sound so easy—as though the commission met and agreed these proposals, when it was actually a long, winding and rocky road to find agreement, because we were dealing with contentious matters. On the point made by my noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, the days when this House was the preserve of the landed gentry have long gone. As we have seen, many Members who have participated in the work of the House, and who I am sure the Minister will join me in paying tribute to, have shown the value of the work that this House does. That should always be our priority, which we have shown ourselves to be ready for. All decisions are about compromise. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that the House has a new role. The commission brings proposals to your Lordships’ House for agreement, and the only body that can agree these proposals or otherwise is this House and the Members taking part in it. It is the ultimate preserve of this House whether it wishes to accept the proposals.
My noble friend Lord McConnell spoke of the imperfections in this temporary system and outlined one. That is one of the things we will address in the proposals going forward. This is a compromise—a way forward in a temporary system that a lot of people had to grapple with to find a way for the House to operate better, recognising the contributions not only of individual Members but of this House and its role in legislation. This week we have dealt with the Business and Planning Bill, where significant amendments that were not dealt with in the House of Commons were sent back to the House of Commons with the agreement of all parties. Last night, those Members dealing with the Agriculture Bill were in your Lordships’ House until midnight debating it, and that could happen tomorrow night as well. We also have the Second Reading of the immigration Bill coming up. We must recognise that we all need to get back to normal working as soon as possible, before we forget what that is, because working in these circumstances is a lot harder for everybody in many ways. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, it is about not only the allowances but how we operate and fulfil our functions.
There were those who were very cynical and sceptical that this House could embrace technology as we have done to conduct our business. Members of the other place are envious of our remote voting system. As their queue snakes around Parliament and they pretend to socially distance, many are very concerned for their welfare and that of their colleagues. The system that we have adopted is infinitely preferable.
While I accept that there will be imperfections and that we all have concerns, the allowance system before us today recognises a number of issues, particularly the frustrations of Back-Benchers who cannot contribute virtually and wish to come into your Lordships’ House. As I have said to my Front-Benchers, and I am grateful for their support in this, the work of the House of Lords is often like a swan; it appears to be going smoothly on top, but if only one could see the furious paddling underneath, including those of us on the Teams channels, WhatsApp channels and email channels managing our business during the days and the enormous amount of work that Peers are involved in that is never seen. These proposals recognise that, and the work of our committees.
With more Peers attending, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the arrangements in place is important. The most important thing is to keep ourselves, each other and our families safe. I hope that we can get some more people into the Chamber and we will have a second Hybrid Chamber operating as well, but I also mean around the building. When I get in early, I talk to cleaning staff and catering staff. They also have concerns, so we must ensure that, whatever we do and however we operate, processes are in place to ensure the safety not only of Peers but of the staff of the House, and not only those in funny clothes but also those cleaning the place and ensuring that we are fed and watered. Can the Minister say something about that? Does she have any comments on the wearing of face masks in the Palace? Also, on testing, if any member of staff or noble Lord has symptoms, what will the procedures be for them being tested, and are there any proposals for preventive testing or preventive support?
On balance, these proposals are an important step forward. I see this not just as something that is happening today. In all the decisions being taken, there must be a process. Having dealt with very difficult circumstances, we are moving to a position from which we can return to normal. That must be part of the process, because it is where we all want to be.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. I agree with the noble Baroness about the commission bringing proposals to the House and the House ultimately having to make decisions on them.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said about travel, but I am afraid that the commission’s decision has been set out. He is rightly expressing his view, which is doubtless shared by many Members of the House, that there needs to be a review of the allowance system overall. I am sure that the members of the commission will have heard his comments, and that there are Back-Benchers who have a lot of sympathy with him.
These are challenging times. We have had to develop a system for the working of the House, as opposed to allowances, which we all know is not perfect, but we have all worked together to do our best to ensure that noble Lords can be involved and can contribute to the important work we want to do. We all accept that this is by no means perfect, which is why we are all very keen to move towards a return to normality—whatever normality finally becomes. But as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said, we have to make sure that as we return, hopefully, in larger numbers in September, we do so in a safe, Covid-secure way, not just for us and all our colleagues but for the staff of the House.
The noble Baroness asked about masks; obviously, as government guidance may change, we will keep that in mind. For instance, in our new Grand Committee that will start in September, we have moved to “one metre with mitigation”, so masks will be worn as you enter because that ensures Covid security, whereas in the Chamber we are two metres apart. So, I suspect we may find in different parts of the House different ways of making sure that we comply with the guidelines. I encourage all noble Lords to bring face coverings with them, but there is already a supply of masks in the Hallkeeper’s Lodge, in St Stephen’s Hall, should people require them. Ah—the noble Lord has pulled one out, and I saw the noble Baroness come in with one earlier. It is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that we keep ourselves and all our colleagues safe.
The noble Baroness also asked about testing. The House authorities have consulted Public Health England on the provision of different types of testing on the Parliamentary Estate, how they could be put in place and how effective they will be in increasing the safety of Members and staff. Members can already get infection testing, as the public can, but I know that as more people come back, guidance changes and testing becomes available in other ways, the authorities are exploring how and whether it could be offered in the most convenient way to Members, but without creating further issues of too many people in one place.
These are all challenges that we will all be working on together, and I appreciate noble Lords’ comments. As the noble Baroness said, I certainly did not mean my remarks to make it sound like this has been easy—it has not—but I hope noble Lords feel that we have taken a step forward. I assure all noble Lords that their concerns have registered with all of us and we greatly appreciate everything they have done. I hope that at this point I can wish all noble Lords a very happy August Recess, and I look forward to seeing many more noble Lords back, I hope, in September.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, we need to have the change-over and to respect social distancing, we need to adjourn for five minutes.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 22nd July 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 June 2020 - (30 Jun 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to bring this much anticipated—I will not say “most welcome” to some of your Lordships—and most important of Bills before your Lordships’ House. It will pave the way for the ending of freedom of movement for EU citizens and the introduction of a single, fairer points-based immigration system which treats people in the same way, regardless of their nationality.
It is now over four years since the British people voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. I know that not all noble Lords were happy with that result, but it was the clearly and democratically expressed will of the people of the United Kingdom, and I do not think that anyone can doubt that concerns about immigration played a part in the referendum. This Government believe that we must deliver what the people voted for, and that position was given added weight by the emphatic result in the general election last December.
The heart of the Bill is that it ends free movement. It does that by repealing EU immigration legislation that is retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. By ending free movement, EEA citizens, including both EU citizens and those from EFTA countries, and their family members will become subject to UK immigration law and will require the same permission to enter and remain in this country as people from the rest of the world. This will pave the way for the introduction of our new points-based immigration system from 1 January 2021, as we pledged to do in the general election manifesto that my party put before the people last December. The design of the new system was set out in the Government’s policy statement issued in February and further details were published on 13 July. I will say more about this new system shortly but, before I do that, I want to highlight some of the other key features of the Bill.
The first is about Irish rights. We are enormously proud of our deep and historic ties with Ireland and of the contribution that Irish citizens have made to the UK over many years, which is why this Bill will protect the rights of Irish citizens. The long-standing arrangements between our countries ensure that Irish citizens benefit from specific rights in the UK—the same rights that British citizens enjoy in Ireland. They include the right to work and study, to access healthcare and social security benefits, and to vote.
This Bill makes it clear that, once free movement ends, Irish citizens will continue to be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now, regardless of where they have travelled from. There will remain limited exceptions to this, as is the case now; namely, where an Irish citizen is subject to deportation orders, exclusion decisions or an international travel ban.
The wider rights enjoyed by Irish citizens in the UK that flow from the common travel area arrangements remain, as reaffirmed in the memorandum of understanding signed by the UK and Ireland last year. Both Governments are committed to preserving the unique status and specific rights in each other’s countries enjoyed for over 100 years.
The Bill also includes an important power to ensure that UK legislation remains coherent once free movement ends. This power permits amendments to primary and secondary legislation which become necessary after the end of free movement. It means that we can align our treatment of EEA and non-EEA citizens, and deliver a system that treats people fairly based on the skills they have and the contribution they make, regardless of where they come from.
The Bill will also enable us to make any necessary changes to our social security system as we align access to benefits for EEA and non-EEA citizens. These policies are led by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and her officials in the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Bill contains powers for the UK Government and/or a Northern Ireland department to amend the retained EU social security co-ordination rules from the end of the transition period for those not in scope of the withdrawal agreement. Scotland will need to make its own primary legislation as appropriate to amend the retained rules in its area of devolved legislative competence.
We are currently in negotiations with the EU about possible new reciprocal arrangements on social security co-ordination. We have been clear that any future agreement on social security must respect Britain’s autonomy to set its own rules. We have already announced that we will end the export of child benefit, and the Bill will enable us to deliver on that commitment.
The UK is working to establish practical, reciprocal provisions on social security co-ordination in order to remove barriers and support the mobility of workers. Any agreement with the EU should be similar in kind to the agreements that the UK has with countries outside the EU. It could include arrangements that provide healthcare cover for tourists, short-term business visitors and service providers; arrangements that allow workers to rely on contributions made in two or more countries to access their state pension, including uprating; and arrangements that prevent dual social security contribution liabilities.
As I have indicated, once free movement ends, we will introduce a single immigration system that encompasses citizens of the whole world. It will be a system based around skills, with the greatest priority given to those with the highest skills who can make the greatest contribution to the UK economy, rather than giving privilege to particular nationalities.
It will be an evidence-based system. Noble Lords will be aware that we commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise us on the design of a future system. We have followed its recommendations very carefully and I am pleased to have this opportunity to put on the record once more the Government’s appreciation of the thoughtful and considered work that the MAC does.
It will be a system that works for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. We do not believe that any part of this nation would be well served by operating different immigration systems in different regions. Such an approach is a recipe for chaos and confusion.
Of course, it will be a points-based system, in keeping with the promise that we made to the electorate. Prospective migrants will be able to score additional points if they have particular skills or based on the nature of the job they are coming to do. This will ensure that it really is an immigration system that enables us to attract the very best migrants from around the world.
We are seizing the opportunity to change the entire system for the better, with simpler, clear and transparent routes. That is why we welcomed the Law Commission’s report into simplifying the Immigration Rules, and why we have accepted many of its recommendations. Cutting through the complexity and streamlining processes will be at the heart of our new system.
As well as working closely with the MAC, we have listened to businesses and stakeholders across the UK in designing the new points-based system, and we will continue to engage and work with employers to make it a success and prepare them for the changes. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, and since the policy statement was published in February, the Home Office has facilitated over 50 events with a wide variety of stakeholders. They include the food and drink manufacturing, retail, automotive and transport, professional business services, agriculture, creative industries, broadcasting, education, public administration, defence, and air and water transport sectors. This is in addition to extensive stakeholder events held in 2019.
Our engagement has focused on those sectors most impacted and those who have previously had little interaction with the immigration system due to reliance on EU labour. We are engaging with advisory groups, a specific group focused on small and medium-sized enterprises, the devolved nations and parliamentarians, as well as holding external events. We have adapted our programme of engagement via increased use of remote technology and are keeping it under continuous review during the current Covid-19 situation to ensure that it remains effective.
We have designed a number of policies which will support the NHS and wider health and care sector to continue to access the best and brightest talent from across the world. We recently announced the introduction of the health and care visa from this summer, which will offer fast-tracked entry to the UK for eligible health and care professionals, reduced application fees and dedicated support through the application process. Those eligible will also be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.
In addition to this new visa, we have introduced a number of unprecedented measures to support health workers from overseas. These include: supporting NHS workers with a free, automatic one-year visa extension for those with six months or less left to stay on their visas; exempting all NHS workers, wider health professionals and social care workers from the requirement to pay the health surcharge; and, as we have clarified, refunding payments made since 31 March. Our EU settlement scheme also continues to enable EU citizens whose home is the UK to build their lives here, including those working in our NHS. We have now seen over 3.7 million applications, with over 3.4 million of them concluded. The scheme is simple and easy to use, and there is just under one year to go until the deadline for applications.
The events of recent weeks have also illustrated just what a crucial role the care sector plays in our society. Talented and dedicated social care workers have risked their lives on the front line in providing vital care to the most vulnerable. We truly value the work they are doing, which is why the Government set out steps in our Action Plan for Adult Social Care to support the workforce and ensure that we have the staff we need and that they feel both supported and valued. The Government’s long-term plan for social care is focused on investment in the sector and those employed in it who deliver compassionate and high-quality care.
The Department for Health and Social Care recently launched a new national recruitment campaign, Every Day is Different, highlighting the vital role that the social care workforce is playing during this pandemic and the longer-term opportunity for working in care. We have also commissioned Skills for Care to rapidly scale up capacity for digital induction training, provided free of charge under DHSC’s workforce development fund. This is free of charge for employers when accessed directly from Skills for Care’s endorsed providers. DHSC is also providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adults’ and children’s social care in 2020-21.
As the MAC identified in its own report, published earlier this year, the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector. It would be a very poor reward for all of those who have worked heroically in the care sector if we were to set up an immigration route which had the effect of keeping wages in the sector at or near minimum wage—a point that the chairman of the MAC has made. As we implement the new immigration system, we want employers to focus on investing in our domestic workforce. The Government are working closely with the sector to go further to recognise the contributions of social care workers. This includes a widespread focus on training, increasing the prestige of our domestic workforce, and introducing a proper career structure to provide opportunities for those in the sector while making it an attractive profession for prospective carers.
In conclusion, there are many across this House who care passionately about immigration issues. It would be remiss of me not to mention my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s Statement yesterday on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review and how we are progressing towards implementing the recommendations. We will undoubtedly have a very valuable and detailed debate on the breadth of these subjects this afternoon. However, the Bill is a simple one, focused on ending free movement. It enables the Government to deliver an immigration system that is firm, fair and fit for the future, supporting economic recovery and prioritising jobs for people here in the UK, while continuing to attract the brightest and the best global talent. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The purpose of this Bill is narrow in scope. It is to end EU freedom of movement rules in the United Kingdom and it has just nine clauses. EEA nationals will become subject to United Kingdom immigration laws after the Brexit transition period, and thus be covered by the Government’s points-based immigration system, to be introduced next year. This Bill is nearly identical to its predecessor, which fell due to the general election last year. It took just six weeks to complete all its stages in the Commons before being passed unamended at Third Reading on 30 June. Progress in the Lords will not be so rapid as in the Commons, although it remains to be seen whether that will be due solely to the August Recess.
The Bill does not itself create a new immigration system. The change to the points-based system will be covered in unamendable Immigration Rules. However, the Bill gives Henry VIII powers to the Government which are so wide-ranging in the way they are worded that they would enable the Government to modify, by unamendable statutory instrument, both primary immigration legislation and retained direct EU legislation. The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4 are only to address necessary technical legislative changes to primary legislation, arising from the ending of free movement.
The same powers in Clause 5, say the Government, are there to enable, first, consequential modifications to be made to primary legislation and other retained EU law if areas of the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations, co-ordinating access to social security for individuals moving between EEA states, have to be repealed because they are not covered in a reciprocal agreement with the EU following the end of the transition period; and, secondly, if consequential technical amendments are needed to legislation arising from any new reciprocal agreement with the EU.
The Lords Delegated Powers Committee said of the previous Bill, however, that Clause 4 presents
“a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive”,
and on Clause 5 it said that
“Parliament is being asked to scrutinise a clause so lacking in any substance whatsoever that it cannot even be described as a skeleton.”
Parliament is going to be denied any proper say and involvement in determining even the basic principles of our future immigration policy post Brexit, and the ending of free movement. Yet the Government admit in their fact sheet 3 on the Bill that:
“By ending free movement, the Bill makes a substantial change to the UK’s immigration laws.”
This is not about the merits or otherwise of Brexit; that decision has been made. It is about the Government’s attitude towards Parliament and its major law-making process in scrutinising and then deciding which Government legislative proposals should, or should not, be passed, rejected or amended.
While the Bill seeks to deny an opportunity to address issues of concern about our immigration system, that does not mean they were not raised in the Commons and will not be raised in the Lords. Issues that have had cross-party support include a time limit on immigration detention for the purpose of deportation, the granting of automatic indefinite leave to remain to eligible EEA and Swiss national children who are in care, or are care leavers, and the need for the continuation of the existing EU arrangements on unaccompanied child refugees and family reunification.
Further issues include, but are not confined to: the application of the “no recourse to public funds” rules, in the light of an apparent promise of a review made by the Prime Minister on 27 May; the progress being made on the Government’s commitment to abolish the immigration health charge for all migrants working in the NHS and social care; exemption from the immigration skills charge for NHS employers in the light of the reality that some hospitals are now paying nearly £1 million a year; clarity on the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK following the end of the transition period, including proof of settled status; and limitations on the duration of the Henry VIII powers.
The end of free movement and the move to the points-based immigration system, with its general salary threshold of £25,600 per annum for coming to work in the UK, seeks to equate low pay with low skills and low value. Consequently, this sends a very clear negative message to low-paid, but not low-skilled, EU nationals currently working in the UK. Many of these people have been among those who have kept, and are keeping, our public services going during the pandemic, not least in the care sector. This sends a clear negative message that, in today’s sometimes distorted view of the value of different jobs to society, we do not appreciate the contribution they make and the skills they bring.
In the Commons last week, a Home Office Minister said that the reason that care workers had been excluded from the qualifying list for the health and care visa was because the Government had a “vision” for the social care sector that it should no longer carry on looking abroad to recruit at or near the minimum wage, and that the Government’s priority was that, in future, care sector jobs will be
“valued, rewarded and trained for, and that immigration should not be an alternative.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1250]
If that means significantly better rates of pay in the underpaid social care sector, I am sure it will have widespread support. However, yesterday the Government said that with the vast majority of social care workers employed in the private sector their
“ability to influence pay rates there is limited”.
Since there are already 100,000 vacancies in England’s care sector alone, and the current flow of people from abroad to fill low-paid care sector jobs is about to dry up, how have the Government been able to satisfy themselves not only that UK-based workers will immediately step in to fill that gap but that they can lower vacancy levels in the social care sector?
If higher pay rates materialise in the social care sector, as a result of the points-based immigration system, there will presumably be an increase in the cost of providing social care. Who will finance those higher costs? Will it be the elderly care home residents and residents receiving care at home? Will it be already cash-strapped local authorities, or will the providers of care provision have to absorb the costs? Or does the Government’s vision extend to them financing the additional costs of a welcome improvement in pay in the social care sector? Perhaps the Government could provide an answer to that question in their response at the end of this debate.
The Government have said that ending free movement from the EU plus the future points-based immigration system should reduce net migration. On what basis have the Government come to that conclusion, bearing in mind that net migration from outside the EU, where there is no free movement, exceeds net migration from the EU, where there is free movement?
Perhaps the Government’s conclusion is an indication that, in the absence of publicly declared targets for net migration, they expect their approach to deter sufficient numbers of people from seeking to come and work here, in which case the hostile environment approach may still exist in spirit, if not officially in name. What happens and what is said during the passage of the Bill may throw some light on that. We will have to see whether some amendments to the Bill are accepted, or whether the absence of any movement on the Bill in the Commons really means a Government which think they are 100% right and that an alternative approach on anything related to the Bill is 100% wrong.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords will have had briefings from many organisations. I wish, in the time, I could do them justice, but I thank them. They say this is an important opportunity to raise issues; noble Lords will make it an opportunity, well beyond the narrow scope of the Bill.
I shall be blunt on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. We understand where we are with Brexit, but we deplore so much of UK immigration policy, we do not support the Bill and we deeply regret the loss of free movement and our membership of what we regarded as a union which was more than political.
Ironically, in the context, the Bill denies parliamentary sovereignty. It is always a concern when excessive powers are granted to the Executive. In its report on the same Bill in a previous Parliament, our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, made that quite clear.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which lives its name, lists the issues of the Bill: legal uncertainty; lack of detail; the power of the Secretary of State to remove unspecified rights; the power to thwart the will of Parliament; the power to amend Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation, which there is an awful lot of; the power to set immigration fees, the size of which can restrict the exercise of rights; diminishing scrutiny; and no clarity on how changes in relation to Irish citizens will affect the rights of Northern Irish citizens under the Good Friday agreement.
Preliminary research by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has identified three important legal protections which are not in any way addressed in the Bill. These are: protections for victims of trafficking in the anti-trafficking directive; protections for asylum seekers in the receptions conditions directive; and protections for victims of crime in the victims’ rights directive.
Our immigration law is, in the words of the Law Commission, “overly complex and unworkable”. A new Bill should simplify it. This is not dry or geeky—it is constitutionally important, and the personal impacts are enormous. An overarching policy that is hostile, harsh, robust, compliant—however it is badged—impacts individuals and personal relationships, often in ways never expected. Ask anyone faced with the need for a spouse visa, who becomes part of a Skype family.
The Windrush review recommendations include assessing whether policies, individually and cumulatively, are effective and proportionate. The recommendations deal too with the engagement of groups and communities affected by proposed policies. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to this and that the Home Office is clearly taking this seriously. We look forward to progress reports on the work now going forward, announced yesterday, and to its outcome.
I did not expect to feel so viscerally shaken by Brexit, not by the direct effect but by a sense of shame in what is heard as “Nice to have known you”—“you”, the millions of people who, through free movement, have become integral to our society. For British citizens living in the EU, their loss of free movement between member states is a real and immediate worry.
Huge numbers of applications have been processed through the settled status scheme, and it has been very successful for those for whom it has been successful. Inevitably, some troublesome aspects are coming to the fore as we draw closer to the close of the scheme, and they will become clearer as time goes on. That is why my noble friend Lord Oates will be tabling an amendment regarding physical documentation in the scheme. If I were renting property, facing an employment check or opening a bank account, I would want that too.
There is a shortage of specialist advice for people whose applications are not straightforward or who may not be able to look out for themselves—many children are within both groups. The detail and nuances of the scheme are not well understood. I read of a civil servant—so no slouch, one assumes—who did not appreciate that his pre-settled status was not the end of it.
We should listen to the people affected: they have a real-world view. We should thank those who painstakingly and responsibly analyse impacts such as entitlement to benefits, no recourse to public funds and allied issues like naturalisation, where comprehensive sickness insurance has reared its head as grounds for refusal. My noble friend Lady Ludford will pursue this in Committee; I miss her today as she is unwell, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis who is covering some of what she planned to say.
Social security co-ordination needs a whole laundry basket of hot towels. It was a relief to read that the DPRR Committee recommends leaving out Clause 5, but I do not suppose that that will be all we discuss. I hope that I have not contributed to my noble friend Lady Ludford’s ill health by suggesting that she deals with Clause 5.
It is not beyond the bounds of the possible that, as values diverge, asylum may be sought in the UK from countries where discrimination becomes persecution—I am thinking of Hungary and Poland—so it is entirely right that, in an EU Bill, we address whether, how and for how long we use detention in immigration removal centres. Did moving detainees when Covid-19 took hold show that there are real flight risks? Asylum seekers never have an easy time; it feels heartless to reduce them and their situation to an item in a list. Unable to work when they are keen to contribute, they are caught with so little income that even existing is a challenge.
We will have more time to debate that in Committee, as we will have more time to discuss family reunion for refugees and ensuring safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children—something that member states have mandated the EU to deal with, so there are no bilateral agreements there; all that is on the table is a very inadequate draft text from the UK.
The immigration system is much more than the points-based system, but the PBS is currently in the spotlight. It is to be preceded by the health and social care visa and a belated nod to the health charge levied on health workers who pay tax, but hands-on
“care workers won’t be able to apply for a visa dedicated to care.”
That neat summary comes courtesy of the BBC’s Dominic Casciani. Are we heading for an even bigger shortage of carers? They ensure that people can stay in their own homes, which means big savings all round and support for the biggest band of carers: the family. Low paid does not mean low skilled. With care workers, it is often a skill that is innate and a matter of culture. I hate the term “brightest and best”. Best at what?
A lot of sectors will be mentioned. A number of my noble friends have stood back today but plan to take part in Committee, when these issues will be explored. I do so want to talk about the creative industries; I will join that debate then.
Time is against me. I can combine two areas of concern—agri-food workers and seasonal workers—to mention seasonal agri-food work. I can also make the link between two Bills: this one and the Domestic Abuse Bill. The link is the lack of provision for migrant women suffering abuse.
Let one sector in the PBS stand proxy for many. Apparently, 80% of the UK’s 10,000 international architects are from the EU; the RIBA says that £7,000 a year will be added to the cost of bringing one in. That seems counterintuitive when we are told to plan for a great burst of building infrastructure.
The requirement for a level of English makes me acutely conscious of my own lack of facility in another language. It is sadly typical of our still too prevalent, overwhelmingly proud and complacent insularity.
No doubt adjustments can be made to business models. Paying a fair wage and not exploiting people must be part of that model, but can this be achieved overnight and while gearing up for a full Brexit, whatever that may comprise?
I know that many of our concerns are shared widely across the House, so we will be glad to support Members on other Benches on a number of amendments, taking forward those proposed in the Commons, as well as having plenty of our own. There are far more issues than we can even touch on today.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, given the large number of noble Lords down to speak in the debate, I gently remind them of the three-minute Back-Bench advisory speaking limit.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, the two Opposition Front-Bench speeches that we have just heard raise the question, why do we restrict immigration? After all, most immigrants are good, industrious and enterprising people, welcome here as our friends, neighbours and colleagues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said.
Some immigration is indeed good for the economy, but you can have too much of a good thing. That is why we limit immigration. Immigration is a lubricant for the economy—not, as Tony Blair appeared to believe, its fuel. If you do not lubricate your car, it grinds to a halt; if you stopped all immigration, it would harm the economy. But beyond a certain point, adding more lubricating oil does not make your car go faster, and allowing mass immigration has not made our incomes grow faster—on the contrary.
The British economy suffers from three major weaknesses, all of which have been exacerbated by mass immigration since Tony Blair lifted the lid. First, we have a major housing shortage, yet over the last five years, net immigration has averaged 300,000 people a year. We need to build a city the size of Hull every year just to accommodate those incomers, and more when they have children.
Secondly, our chronic reluctance to train people means that fewer British workers have vocational and technical skills than any of our competitors; yet encouraging employers to recruit from abroad undermines their incentive to train and employees’ incentive to upskill. After Blair opened our borders, training time per worker halved and funding for training fell by 16%. We are told that the NHS needs migrants because Brits do not want to be doctors and nurses. Untrue—there are 10 applicants for every place in a medical school, and we turned away 35,000 applicants for nursing courses last year. The NHS finds it cheaper to import doctors and nurses from poor countries, which need them more than us, rather than train British applicants.
Thirdly, we invest less per head than most of our competitors. A ready supply of cheap labour reduces employers’ incentives to invest in improved productivity, and most skilled immigrants work in low-skilled jobs.
So, we need this Bill to reduce pressure on housing, encourage training in skills and boost investment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I and many others will focus on some of the potential unintended consequences of this Bill as we endeavour to speak on behalf of those with limited voice and means and without the level of expertise required to navigate our highly complex immigration and social security systems. At this stage, I will not set out a shopping list of the many areas where we would like clarification; we will be able to do that in painful detail in Committee, which I hope will be conducted in your Lordships’ House with rather more time, care and attention than was possible in another place.
This afternoon, I want to focus on an area that the Minister confessed on Monday is of particular interest and relevance to her. During an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who will speak later in this debate, she indicated how pleased she was to find a colleague in your Lordships’ House who shares her interest in her particular area of policy responsibility: digital ID and data. One might ask what relevance accurate and reliable digital ID and data have to this Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that accurate and reliable data are not a defining characteristic of the modern Home Office. Whether it is confusion over the accuracy and segmentation of our estimated immigration statistics, the exact numbers of care leavers or children awaiting adoption, or the lamentable lack of knowledge and clarity about the legal and citizenship status of the Windrush generation, there is much room for improvement.
There are three areas where accurate and reliable data are of particular importance to this Bill: immigration statistics; exact data on the different categories of EUSS applicants; and the dilemma of how to evaluate policy toward those with no recourse to public funds when there is an absence of proper data on exactly who, and how many, the condition affects. I ask the Minister to do her utmost to commit to clear actions, initiatives and policies and measurable targets to bring about a dramatic improvement in the quality, timeliness and accuracy of data, which are completely fundamental to successful policy direction and implementation. Given her professional and personal interest in this subject—a passion that she appears to share with a certain Mr Cummings—I look forward to her working with your Lordships’ House toward achieving a step change in the quality of Home Office data.
This Bill is regarded by those who believe that we made the right decision in leaving the European Union as the dawn of a new era. Whatever one’s views about that decision, this is an opportunity to ensure that we create new legislation and policies using a level of data and insight that has been sorely lacking in the past—and, alas, is also lacking today.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the introduction of this Bill in another place is a signal opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government comprehensively to reset the legislative basis for immigration control in this country, to set out a vision for doing so, and to rationalise and streamline the more than 1,000 pages of immigration legislation under which we labour. It is surprising, therefore, that, as other speakers have pointed out, this Bill is so narrow in scope.
The Government have separately published intentions for their policy on the Immigration Rules which extend neither refuge, welcome nor the means of integration, but instead offer a system that meets the labour demands of business and is therefore entirely different from the Australian points-based system. The Bill is silent on the issue of EU citizens in the UK—another immigration crisis in the making. We now know that the estimate of the numbers of EU citizens here was too low and that the campaign to get them to apply for settled and pre-settled status has been solely in English. The Home Office has cut its funding to NGOs which would help reach those who have not applied, and what about those who think they need not apply, whose English is still poor, or who are children in care in this country?
Following the Government’s recent announcement on their points-based system, I asked the noble Baroness to respond to the concerns around visa routes for ministers of religion and other religious workers, which are particularly exercising for the Roman Catholic Church and black majority churches, where cost is a major factor. Additionally, definitions of “ministers”, “religion” and “religious workers” are leading to confusion. The Church of England would be willing to offer help around definitions, and if the Government would consider the issue of cost, that would be well received by those affected.
There is a strong moral case for the tariff on visas and other fees to be confined to administrative costs. The current system is an unwarranted and burdensome levy on migrants, which is iniquitous. Those who come here to work already pay tax and national insurance to fund our public services. Why must they pay a health surcharge as well? I trust that the waiving of this surcharge during the pandemic is a sign that the Government are having second thoughts on this regrettable manifesto commitment. A migrant applying for indefinite leave to remain in the UK must pay £2,389, whereas the average cost to the Home Office to process such an application is a mere £243.
We should welcome applications to become British citizens and not saddle applicants with debt. Scandalously, the fee for a child is over £1,000, although the High Court found last year that the Home Office had failed to assess the best interests of children in setting this fee. Will the Minister update the House on the implementation of this ruling?
There are two amendments that I would likely be ready and willing to support. Time and again in my diocese, I am told of asylum seekers who are massively disadvantaged by the current ban on paid working. Furthermore, I will support an amendment that sets clear limits on periods of detention. We ignore the relational aspect in the delivery of any public service at our peril. I hope the Government will commit to immigration reform on just principles.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the only market the Conservative Party is not in favour of is the labour market. In opening this debate, the Minister talked about the referendum and the December election. A number of seats surrounding my city of Sheffield have gone Conservative. I think those voters would be astonished to find that while the numbers from Europe have literally fallen like a stone, the numbers from the rest of the world, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, have rocketed. The changing culture that that will bring in due course might bring pause for thought to the Conservative Party.
I want to concentrate briefly on the contradictions between skilling our own people and this Bill. As has been said, we should of course skill people and do everything possible to ensure that we transform their life chances and the ladder of learning through life. The more people learn and the higher the skill they obtain, the less likely they are to work in those industries and services which are absolutely crucial to our survival.
There are 120,000 vacancies in adult residential care and a turnover rate of 30%. It is estimated that about a quarter of a million people of overseas origin work in adult care services. The Government will probably be saved temporarily by the aftermath of the Covid virus, because people will be desperate to take a job—any job. However, as they skill, they will find that those from overseas will not take the jobs that they are leaving but the jobs that they are seeking—that is, as managers or owners of residential care services. This can be replicated right across the sector.
We deprecate young people going to higher education, as the Secretary of State and his higher education Minister did recently, and suggest that it would be better if they took other jobs. We also imply that those with little skills should take up the jobs previously occupied by migrants who then educated themselves and contributed to the economy.
There is not time to go into the disparaging of the Labour Government by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I am very happy to take him on in future, inside and outside the House, on the statistics he quoted, the attitude he displayed and the real importance of understanding the contradictions and difficulties of managing migration policy at the same time as transforming the life chances of those already here.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is heralded as the UK taking back control, not least by ending the free movement of people under retained EU law. Noble Lords will also remember the promise that EU citizens will no longer have any advantage over citizens of non-EU countries. And then Brexit dogma hits reality.
Noble Lords will remember when e-passport gates at UK airports were restricted to UK, EU and EEA citizens only: you simply scan your passport and you are free to enter the UK. Compare this with the often vast queues for other passport holders, whose reason for entry is questioned and whose passports and visas are checked manually by Border Force officers. Of course, the Government cannot continue to give preferential treatment to EU citizens, so the enormous number of EU and EEA visitors to the UK would surely have to queue with those from the rest of the world. After all, we are taking back control of our borders, are we not? Well, no, because the system would grind to a halt if that happened.
So what are we doing now? The Government’s solution is to let citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States also use e-passport gates, as well as EU citizens—then, of course, the Government cannot be accused of giving EU citizens preferential treatment. These visitors can come to the UK for six months, do a day trip outside the UK and then come back to the UK for another six months—no visa, no fee, and no way of tracking where they are, how long they stay or whether they have left again. The Government say that
“they may not live in the UK by means of repeat visits”,
but there is no way of checking, unless the Minister can enlighten us; I will listen to her response with interest. Rather than taking back control of our borders, we have thrown them open to even more people.
If you go to the United States of America as a UK citizen, Homeland Security officers at the border will assume that you intend to stay and work illegally until you convince them otherwise. Your photograph and fingerprints are taken and you have to record where you are going to stay and when you intend to leave. When a US citizen comes to the UK, they swipe their passport at the e-passport gates and waltz through the border. It may be a trivial example but, across a wide range of issues, the dogma of ending free movement will result in a detrimental impact on the UK, ranging from staffing our NHS and social care systems to ensuring that our crops are harvested.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Three-minute speeches require one to cut corners, which is always a dangerous thing to do and no more dangerous than when on is talking about immigration, an area where every phrase is liable to misinterpretation.
In the mid-1990s, before the Blair Government opened the gates to and encouraged large-scale immigration, the population of the country was 58.1 million. It is now 66.4 million, some 8 million higher. The ONS projection for the numbers for 2040 is another 6 million on top of that. It means that, in half a century, we will have added a quarter to our population. Today, as I speak, the population is going up by just under 1,100 a day, or just under 400,000 a year, with a third, roughly, from the natural increase—the excess of births over deaths—and roughly two-thirds from immigration.
Members of your Lordships’ House may regard all this with equanimity, but let me tell them that, outside, our fellow citizens do not regard it with equanimity; they are very concerned about it indeed. Recent polling says that no fewer than 74% of those polled believe the Government should introduce policies to deal with the challenges of rapid population growth. Of course, it is important, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, not to demonise new arrivals; they bring a degree of economic and cultural dynamic without which we would be a much poorer country. But it is about scale, and it is important to recognise that, under the system of the past few years, there have been losers.
Who are the losers? They are the poorest in our society, as the wages for the bottom decile are now 12% lower in real terms than they were in 2008; they are older people, as it is increasingly difficult for people over 50 to get a job, and at a time when we are raising the retirement age from 65 to 68. Another loser is the British economy, whose Achilles heel is a poor productivity record, which is linked to the free availability of labour, meaning that no investment has been made in machinery; it is the developing world, because we, along with the rest of western society seem to see no moral fault in draining the developing world of its scarce trained resources. Lastly, it is our environment and ecology, because of the damage caused by rapid population growth.
In this Bill, we will be resetting the dial on this critical issue. In Committee, I will want to probe my noble friend on the Front Bench to reassure us, first, that those who have lost out in the years so far will not lose out in the next set of years and, secondly, that proper weight will be given to the quality of aspects of population growth, since they will have such an important and vital consequence for the country we leave our children and grandchildren.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She is not responding. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will concentrate on those parts of the Bill that make provision for social security co-ordination, particularly Clause 5 and Schedules 2 and 3.
We are currently part of the EU system, which is based on four principles: the single state principle that, at any one time, EU citizens are covered by the social security system of just one country and have to pay contributions in only one country; equal treatment, whereby if they are in another member state, they have the same rights as their nationals; aggregation, meaning that periods of insurance, employment or residence in other member states count when determining eligibility for benefits; and exportability, meaning that they can receive benefits from one member state even when they live in another. There is a well-established system of administrative co-operation behind this and these provisions will still apply after the transition period for those within the scope of the withdrawal agreement. The UK has also done a deal with Ireland that broadly replicates the current provisions.
However, the position of other people moving between the UK and the EU after the transition period will depend on whether a future relationship agreement covering social security co-ordination is secured. The augurs are not positive. Last month, a Commons Library brief noted:
“The EU’s Draft Protocol on Social Security Coordination and the UK’s Draft Social Security Coordination Agreement differ significantly in terms of both the matters covered and the persons covered.”
Oh dear.
There is some common ground on state pensions, where both sides want aggregation and for pensions to be able to be exported and uprated annually, but not on disability benefits or healthcare for pensioners living abroad. And there are no co-ordination provisions for benefits other than pensions.
Can the Minister tell us whether there is an agreement in the offing? If not, am I right that this could mean that, without an agreement, workers moving to or posted to an EU country could have to pay national insurance contributions in both countries; people moving between the UK and the EU could find that their contributions paid overseas are ignored if, say, they later fall sick and need to claim benefits; and that there will be no clear rules about which country is responsible for paying someone’s benefits and no mechanism for resolving disputes?
There is deep uncertainty about the future position, but the right response is not a Bill containing Henry VIII powers so broad that they will allow Ministers pretty much to rewrite the social security co-ordination rules at will. Social security co-ordination is an essential prerequisite for labour mobility. But it is also about fairness. These issues affect a lot of people and Parliament deserves more clarity, control and accountability than this Bill currently affords.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, there is little positive to say about this Bill and much, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has so eloquently summarised, that is not only negative but deeply alarming. In its current state, the Bill has the potential to disrupt the family life of British citizens resident in the EU and risks creating a bureaucratic quagmire for EU citizens after the settled status deadline expires, leaving all of them without physical proof of their right to live in the UK—a point that I will come back to in Committee.
The very first clause abolishes free movement. From January next year, EU citizens will lose their free movement rights in the UK. At the same time, every British citizen will lose their right to live, work and travel freely throughout the European Union. EU citizens will lose their rights and privileges in one country; British citizens will lose their rights and privileges in 27 across the European continent. Ministers who enjoyed those rights for the majority of their lives have ensured that they are stripped from their children and grandchildren for ever. They have shrunk the horizons of our country and of our children’s futures, and it is a shame. I recognise that the Government will not reverse course, but I hope that they will at least reduce the impact by listening to the arguments to improve the Bill as it progresses through the House.
I want to focus on three particular areas for improvement. The first is in respect of British citizens resident in the European Union. Those with non-British spouses and family members need to know that, should they wish to return to live in the UK with their family, they will be able to do so. All British citizens living in the EU want to be reassured that we will uphold the treaty rights of EU citizens in the UK; the better to insist that they are upheld for our citizens in the EU. Secondly, the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary made a categorical commitment to EU citizens during the referendum that they would retain exactly the same rights as they had before exit. That promise has long since been betrayed but, at the very least, the Government could make one small concession and provide EU citizens with settled or pre-settled status with physical proof of their right to be in the UK. It is a small thing to ask, but it would make a huge difference, especially to the elderly, many of whom are particularly anxious about the current digital-only status. Finally, I urge the Government to amend the Bill to guarantee that the rights of EU citizens will not be subject to alteration by ministerial fiat, but guaranteed in primary law.
In conclusion, let me make this appeal. The Government have the opportunity to reconsider the Bill by accepting amendments that will bring it at least a little closer to the promises made in the referendum campaign and will help to alleviate the anxiety felt by millions of people facing an uncertain future. To do so, they will need the strength and humility to swallow their pride and do the right thing. I hope that they will find it.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, my concern is the negative impact of the end to freedom of movement and the subsequent points-based system on two discrete groups of people: teachers of modern foreign languages and public service translators and interpreters, especially in the NHS and the criminal justice system. I declare my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
An estimated 35% of MFL teachers and 85% of classroom language assistants are EU nationals. The new system would result in such drastic shortages in the supply chain of MFL teachers that the viability of languages on the curriculum would become terminal. If languages disappear in schools they will also continue to disappear in universities, cutting further the supply chain of homegrown MFL teachers and the linguists needed for diplomacy, trade, defence and security. Around a third of public service interpreters are EU nationals and many more are from other countries. The new rules would create severe shortages and many people will have justice or healthcare either delayed or denied. The national register of PSIs has shrunk by nearly a third since 2012 and, unless we improve recruitment and retention, the risk is that, to quote the register’s director, “Inadequate pseudo interpreters will be used and there will be life-threatening situations using bilingual children rather than qualified, experienced, registered and regulated interpreters who understand medical terms and are trained health and medical language experts.”
Some amendments to the new rules would prevent this crisis. Qualified teachers would meet the salary threshold, but it is an impossible barrier for interpreters, almost all of whom are freelance with average annual earnings as low as £15,000 a year. A PhD offers a smoother path into the UK, but this would rule out most vocationally trained practitioners. It would also be fairer to classify them as “highly skilled” rather than just “skilled”, as at present. Freelance status itself is an issue. There is no dedicated route for self-employed people and, as low-earning freelancers, PSIs will not be able to get a sponsor and do not fit into the so-called innovator route. There is a vague promise of a future route that could help, and I ask the Minister to make good on this promise now. Public service interpreting should also count as a specialist occupation.
Finally, it would help enormously if PSIs and all MFL teachers were on the shortage occupation list. Teachers of Mandarin are listed, but with a shortfall already of 38% in MFL teacher recruitment, they should all be on it. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at all the weaknesses I have identified in relation to these two groups of highly qualified, highly skilled workers vital to the UK’s economic and cultural well-being and our human rights. If for nothing else other than enlightened self-interest, we should offer them a better deal.
Lord Bowness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the Bill, but I regret the context in which it is presented, particularly as it was presented in the other place. Immigration from the European Union has never prevented us permitting the entry of highly skilled and talented people from elsewhere in the world. Indeed, the number of skilled and talented people coming from outside the European Union has always been considerably higher, but there is an implication that EU migrants are somehow of lesser ability. Bearing in mind the number of them working in the NHS, this is clearly wrong.
We have enjoyed considerable benefits from the 2004 enlargement. Yes, the numbers turned out to be greater than anticipated, but permitting migration from the newly admitted nations was a bold move and a gesture to those states formerly under communist rule. Moreover, the move met with only limited opposition from the then Conservative Opposition.
I also regret the Bill because it marks a very clear break with our neighbours in Europe. It signals the end of the benefit of free movement throughout the EU by UK citizens and we should in no way be triumphant about that. No, European Union immigration is not going to deliver the greatness we seek; it never stopped us having it.
It is not clear to me where the negotiations are regarding travel for UK citizens. I have been asking over time about the efforts Her Majesty’s Government are making to ensure that 180-day visas for visitors, which we are giving to visitors from the European Union, are matched by the 27. I understand that this is a matter for separate negotiation with each of them. It may be that my noble friend can tell me where we are and whether the Government are even concerned about the situation and the potential difference in treatment. Can she also tell me where the negotiations are taking place?
I turn now to Clause 5, which I have read carefully, together with the Explanatory Notes. It is probably me, but I found them quite difficult to follow. Does this clause permit the existing rights of those with EU settled status to be changed to their detriment post 2020? My noble friends have already referred to changes to child benefit. What other changes do the Government have in mind and what other provisions are capable of being changed under the Bill’s provisions? Surely people who have applied and are about to apply for settled status need to know that their entitlement will not be different from UK citizens’. My noble friend referred to the outcome of negotiations. This creates uncertainty for EU citizens, who in fairness need to know where they will stand.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s introduction of the Bill, particularly her reference to the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. This is particularly welcome today because in recent weeks there has been some concern about Northern Ireland and the message from Dublin that British visitors to the Republic of Ireland are not welcome this year due to the pandemic infection level in Great Britain.
At 7.30 this morning the Dublin Government issued their “green list” of visitors, and while citizens of the EU are allowed to come, people from Great Britain are sadly not on the list. To me, that seems a contradiction of the common travel area. The common travel area has worked successfully and I fully support it. I am glad to say that, for the first time since the south of Ireland left the United Kingdom, last year more people from Britain went to live in the Republic of Ireland than Irish people came to live in the United Kingdom.
I am a governor of the second-largest boarding school in Northern Ireland. Of the total number of pupils who board there, we have some 40 to 50 from foreign countries such as China, India and now even Russia, as well as from the Republic of Ireland. I am concerned about the issue of English language schools in the United Kingdom because they are now in trouble. We have 400 such schools, attended every year by some 150,000 students. The sector is worth £1.4 billion to the United Kingdom economy and it supports 35,000 jobs. Moreover, having students from foreign countries in our schools helps our soft power when they return to their home countries.
However, the statistics are not good for this year. Student numbers were down 28% in the first quarter, down 79% in the second quarter, down a further 83% in the third quarter, and 83% of school staff are now on furlough. Of course, the schools have missed out on the peaks for Easter and summer breaks. There is uncertainty in the key markets—for example, China—and concern about the effect Brexit may have on EU students and staff coming to the schools.
At the same time, competition is increasing from such countries as the United States, Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland. In fact, the Republic of Ireland has this year extended its visas due to the pandemic, to make it easier for students to go to English language schools in the Republic. There is big competition out there in the wider world, and the English language schools in the United Kingdom require support. Therefore, I suggest that the temporary workers scheme be introduced with a dedicated visa category for those attending schools, similar to the one we have for seasonal agricultural workers.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows for any EU-derived rights to cease to be recognised in domestic law if they are either inconsistent with immigration legislation or
“capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”.
An important body of EU-derived rights has been the human trafficking directive, one of the aims of which is
“to enable the victim to recover”.
Article 11 requires assistance and support for victims. While the Modern Slavery Act 2015 made many positive changes, it did not, regrettably, include a statutory right to assistance and support, as in the parallel Northern Ireland and Scottish legislation. When the directive ceases to have effect, the EU rights for victims in England and Wales will disappear. It would seem, therefore, that the legal rights of these victims will be negatively affected by the power in Schedule 1.
Last week, the Centre for Social Justice published a report on modern slavery. It said that the Government must enshrine survivor rights in law to guarantee and protect access to support. It, like me, urges the Government to give all trafficking victims certainty over support and immigration status by adopting the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Sir Iain Duncan-Smith’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which would give confirmed victims of trafficking immigration leave for a minimum of 12 months to receive assistance and support to recover from their abuse.
In the context of the imminent termination of the immigration rights implicit in the right to free movement and the protections in the directive, which have not been translated into UK law, the need for the McColl/Duncan-Smith Bill is now greatly strengthened. I hope the Government will now prioritise giving this Private Member’s Bill time to become law, led as it is in part by two eminent Conservative parliamentarians, one a former leader of the Conservative Party.
I very much welcome the Minister’s opening remarks. She said that all parts of the United Kingdom will be treated as equals. That is very important, and I could not support it more.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful that a day or two ago, the Minister allowed us to ask questions and discuss the Bill in a more informal way than we can today. I still regret that there is so much in the Bill that it will not be in our power to do much about: in other words, the powers given to the Government under the Henry VIII provisions or immigration rules will be such that we can hardly influence them, and we cannot amend them. Can the immigration rules come to us in two stages: the first, amendable in draft form; and then the final version?
Other noble Lords have talked about the difficulties with social care. The Government are saying that their policy is that social care workers should have higher pay, and we should train more of them so that we do not need to have immigrants to deal with social care, where there are 100,000-plus vacancies at the moment. The trouble is, there will not be time for that: we will be near the end of the year and it takes time to train people; it is wishful thinking. The danger is that we will have a larger gap in social care provision as a result of this legislation. It is a retrograde step and we shall live to regret it.
I shall refer to one or two issues on which, if amendments are tabled, I hope I shall be able to support them. I am concerned about the length of immigration detention. As far as I know, we are the only country in Europe that has no limit on immigration detention. In 2019, 24,000 people were detained in this way. Currently, some 1,500 to 2,000 are detained, although it may have gone down a bit because of early releases due to the pandemic. I hope the Minister will confirm that a large proportion of those detained are, in the end, not removed from the country and are released. The only figure I can find is that 37% of those under immigration detention were removed and the remainder were released, so why detain them at all? What is the purpose of that? It seems to me quite wrong, in a democratic country, that we should be doing that.
The right to work for migrants should be such that they can work after six months and not one year. It is very hard for people who have arrived in this country and want to contribute to our economy and pay their taxes if they are not able to do that. I am also concerned about the discussions about no recourse to public funds, which punishes people twice over. I hope to be able to move an amendment to the Bill on child refugees. I believe that public opinion, if the arguments are put, supports bringing into this country some of the most vulnerable of our fellow human beings—child refugees in Calais and on the Greek islands. I very much hope the House will support such an amendment in the interests of human rights and justice.
Lord Dholakia (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effect of various pieces of immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious. The present immigration and social security co-ordination Bill is a clear example of the failure of the Government’s strategy to make migration work for Britain. All the promises about controlling numbers—fewer than 100,000 a year—have not worked for Britain.
Economic migrants have helped to make Britain one of the richer countries in the world, both economically and culturally. There remains a positive economic benefit from managed immigration, filling the demand for skills and labour that are in short supply. It is for this reason that we should concentrate more on the economic and cultural benefits of this process. Constant harping on the control of numbers has skewed our approach to this subject. The cultural and operational practices adopted by the Home Office are notoriously inefficient. Nowhere is this more explicit than in its failure to provide a service that is efficient, effective, timely and fair for all. There is a very high error rate in the initial decision-making process, which results in a culture of rejection.
We have seen race and immigration issues being exploited during both general and local elections. The attempts by politicians to appease a certain section of the public and the media shamefully made a political football of the immigration issue. The last Greater London mayoral election was a case in point. We were told that millions of Turkish migrants were ready to enter this country after the referendum. One does not need Home Office vans touring the streets of London telling illegal immigrants to go home: this is not the way to run our country.
Immigration policies have played a crucial role in successive Governments over the past few years. Let me cite an example. The Labour Government in the 1950s, at the time of Windrush, set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the possibility of legislation and administrative methods to deal with the matter of immigrants. Its key recommendation was that any solution depending on an apparent or concealed colour test would be so invidious as to be impossible to adopt. However, it concluded that, nevertheless, it has to be recognised that the use of power to restrict the free entry of British subjects would, as a rule, be confined to coloured persons. This was nearly 70 years ago. It is no wonder the price we are paying for Windrush, which has now affected so many lives.
We have the same situation now. We are refusing to give proper documentation to settled migrants from the EU, despite the concern expressed on this by EU ambassadors and others.
Finally, there are many issues in the present legislation that we intend to probe; many of them have been highlighted by other speakers. Key among these is that the Bill leaves the immigration system to secondary legislation. This is unacceptable, and the Government should be prepared to expect problems in Committee.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My concern is the interests of EEA citizens who are victims of human trafficking and exactly how their situation will change on 31 December. Hitherto, some EEA victims have been able to remain on the basis of treaty rights that will no longer exist. Even if the Government allow all EEA victims of human trafficking to be automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain, the criteria are tight.
On the basis of past experience, only a tiny portion of confirmed victims of human trafficking are likely to be granted leave to remain. The EEA cohort of victims of trafficking is therefore likely to experience a significant net reduction in access to public funds. This will have significant implications for UK rates of destitution and retrafficking, given that 39% of victims were EEA nationals as of 2019.
In this context, do the Government recognise the strategic significance of my Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned, it is sponsored in another place by Sir Iain Duncan Smith. It provides confirmed victims of slavery a minimum of 12 months’ support to help them rebuild their lives, avoiding destitution and retrafficking with all its associated costs and trauma. It will also greatly assist the conviction of traffickers by making it much easier for all victims to think about giving evidence in court.
The Government deserve great credit for their commitment in dealing with human trafficking and slavery, and I am particularly grateful that they adopted my first anti-trafficking and slavery Bill after your Lordships kindly passed it in this House. I therefore look forward to their adoption of my second Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, as kindly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am president of the Spinal Injuries Association and we are being contacted by an increasing number of members, who include some of the most vulnerable people in society today, desperately worried about the future shortage of skilled carers as a result of the planned immigration system. A very real staffing crisis is looming, with serious implications for the health and safety of a significant number of these vulnerable people.
Carers are not used just in hospitals and care homes. Many disabled people live in their own homes and have live-in carers or carers who visit them every day. These carers include many overseas nationals, and they are absolutely essential in managing disabled people’s health needs and enabling them to lead active, productive and fulfilled lives. They are key workers. Carers are a vital and integral part of the healthcare system.
Low paid does not mean low skilled. The vast majority of social care roles do not meet the planned immigration system’s salary threshold of £25,600. Restricting the numbers of overseas nationals who can work in this sector will put lives at risk, especially as we have an ageing population. We need people with a work ethos who want to help and look after people and enjoy and take satisfaction in doing this.
There is a danger that people who cannot get work of their choice are pushed into doing care work, with such horrifying results as happened at Whorlton Hall near Barnard Castle, Thors Park in Essex and Winterbourne View near Bristol, where patients were abused and bullied. This cruelty was exposed by “Panorama”. We must surely try to prevent this sort of thing happening again. I hope the Government will listen before it is too late.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I look forward to the debates on the Bill in Committee and at other stages and draw attention to my registered interests, not least the work I do with charities representing child refugees. I endorse the comments made by a number of noble Lords already in the debate about the need for us to show more humanity in our approach to that. Hopefully your Lordships’ House will indeed do that.
I pick up on one of the remarks made by the Minister in introducing the debate. She said that any regional approach to immigration in the UK would cause chaos and therefore should be avoided. I reflect back on 2004 when, as First Minister of Scotland, I had identified the problem of Scotland’s depopulation. One of the ways we could tackle that problem was to encourage in particular those who had come to study in Scotland to stay, but also to attract new people to Scotland to energise both our population numbers and our economy with the entrepreneurship they would bring.
I agreed a scheme with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary—an incredibly thoughtful and intelligent Home Secretary, who I think would win that debate he promised us at the end of his earlier contribution. He agreed a scheme that involved a fresh talent visa in Scotland. It was particular to Scotland and allowed those who had studied in Scotland to stay longer to secure work and perhaps establish a family and home in our country. The scheme was never abused. Report after report showed that it was possible to have a scheme in one part of the United Kingdom that worked for the local circumstances there. The partnership we developed at that time between the Scottish Government and the UK Government—the Home Office—was an exemplar in devolved-central government co-operation in the UK.
While debates about regional approaches to immigration are sometimes coloured by more extreme demands for devolving responsibility for immigration to one of the devolved nations—which I have never been in favour of—it is possible to have regional approaches. There are parts of the United Kingdom where a one-size-fits-all approach no longer works. This is not just in Scotland but can be in other parts of the UK too. I hope that when we come to debates on this in Committee or on Report, the Minister will be willing to listen to the opportunities that would exist if we opened the door to regional approaches, which would benefit the whole UK and not just the nations or regions affected.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the Government say that this Bill aligns the treatment of people from the EEA seeking asylum or to migrate to the UK with that of the rest of the world. From the Government who were responsible for the Windrush scandal, this is indisputably a levelling down and needs extensive scrutiny in this House. Some may question whether any EU 27 citizens would claim asylum. Clearly they have not spoken to people from Poland, where, under the latest iteration of Section 28, municipalities in one-third of the country have declared themselves LGBT-free zones, or to people from Hungary, where President Orbán used the Covid-19 emergency to obliterate the legal recognition of trans people. I hope our Home Office will not treat citizens as inhumanely as it does LGBT asylum seekers from the rest of the world.
Cancer Research UK has pointed out the fear that this Bill threatens the UK’s position as a centre for world-class research. We need an immigration system that enables our institutions to be go-to destinations for global research and innovation talent. That means having a skills pipeline of young junior research scientists, who do not reach the income levels set out in this Bill. Will the Government carry out an urgent review of the UK’s visa costs and their expected impact on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff? If our visa system remains one of the most expensive in the world, we will simply create a hostile environment for research.
We still await the Government’s detailed proposals for the future of social care, but this Bill will definitely disrupt the supply of care staff from abroad. What modelling have the Government done to work out the impact of this Bill on the health and social care sector?
The Bill is heralded by Ministers as laying the foundation for a new immigration system, but it is silent on the nature of that foundation, let alone the substance of any system that may be built upon it. Let us use it as an opportunity to remove one stain on our national reputation: unlimited detention. Let us use it to do what the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place said on 21 March 2019, when it made wide-ranging criticisms of our current detention policy and practice and concluded that:
“Lengthy … detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm.”
It recommended an end to indefinite immigration detention and the implementation of a maximum 28-day limit.
This Bill has the potential to do great harm to the health and well-being of our nation. I hope it receives detailed scrutiny and amendment during its passage through this House.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to take part in the Second Reading of this important Bill, as hundreds of thousands of final decisions are made annually under the Immigration Rules which are life-changing for the applicants.
In the past, many have said that the rules have been too complex, so I am pleased about the work to complete redrafting, making the rules simpler and more accessible to applicants, and the twice-yearly updates creating more certainty and transparency.
The Bill commits the Government to deliver a fairer, skills-led immigration system based not on where people come from but on their skills, not only enabling businesses to flourish but giving people the opportunity to begin one, to help drive and deliver a high-performing UK economy. It does this while giving us full control over our borders, together with a future points-based immigration system for when transition ends. As this new system is introduced, decisions can be made, importantly, far quicker and more accurately.
In supporting our economy, business and trade, the Bill ensures that workers and employers pay contributions in only one country at a time. Those who are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period are protected by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act and will be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme to secure their immigration status in UK law until 30 June 2021. I am also pleased with the confirmation of the rights of Irish citizens.
Let us not forget that migrants play a huge role in our economy—you have only to look at the contribution they make to our health service, brought to prominence particularly during the Covid crisis. It is important to note both that those currently working in the NHS will be subject to an automatic extension for a year and the settlement scheme for EU citizens, which opened in March 2019 and received 3.7 million applications.
This Bill will allow the Government to identify understaffed sectors and make provision for those who want to make a new life here and contribute to our economy. The costs to the public sector of ending free movement will relate to the administration of the evidence-based system. They will not be minor costs, but the Government are responding to the people across the country who have called for this change.
As the Secretary of State said, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our immigration system so that all EU and non-EU citizens will be treated equally—a system to develop our national interest and the economy which treats immigrants from all countries on the same basis. It is fair and not anti-immigration. It is based on people’s skills rather than on their nationality. It is a system which mirrors those of other countries and will give us a lever to open up to the world, which I welcome.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I fully endorse the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Hodgson. I declare a non-financial interest as founding co-chairman and now president of Migration Watch. In those capacities I have followed immigration for nearly 20 years; indeed, I am now on my 10th Home Secretary and 15th Minister for Immigration.
Migration Watch is the only body that has consistently called for a reduction in the scale of immigration, a view which, according to nine recent opinion polls, is shared by a majority of the UK population. That amounts to approximately 30 million adults. I add that Migration Watch has a remarkable record in projecting immigration levels. For example, in 2002, we estimated that non-EU net migration would run at 2 million over the following decade. We were met with disbelief, but the ONS later estimated that it had indeed amounted to 2.1 million.
This points-based system will cause net migration to spin out of control. The only question is how rapidly this will occur. Secondary legislation under the Bill will lower salary and educational requirements. At the same time, work routes will be opened up to the whole world and will generate a pool of potential—I stress “potential”—candidates running into literally hundreds of millions. Some employers will want cheaper, non-unionised workers; others will follow suit to stay competitive. Furthermore, as these routes will lead to settlement, many candidates around the world will have relatives already here to guide and encourage them—all this as unemployment in the UK heads into several millions.
In a nutshell, the Government are heading for a car crash. There is only one way to avoid this: to start with a cap on work permits and then adjust it as necessary. The public will simply not understand why, having promised to take back control over immigration, the Government should then hand control over to employers, most of whom have very little interest in controlling it.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, under cover of the pandemic, Ministers are doggedly pursuing their Brexit immigration agenda when we are in the grip of a pandemic-induced economic tsunami. A hard Brexit, sought by many Conservatives, will sever links with our most important trading partners and neighbours, and unilaterally end free movement on 31 December, with our economy still on its knees and facing a major skills crisis.
This will be the second time in the last 10 years that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants who have legally entered this country to live and work here. The Bill aims to prioritise “skilled” labour with a points-based system based largely on salary. However, as shown by a recent Ipsos MORI poll, the public recognise, with my noble friend Lord Rosser, the important role played in the pandemic by the 180,000 European Union-national health and care workers, most of whom would be identified by the Home Secretary as “low-skilled” and would not have qualified for visas under the Bill.
Unless deals on citizens’ rights are reached with the European Union, these workers, many of them heroes in the Covid crisis, will be exposed to the harsh reality of the Home Office’s failed and inhumane hostile environment policy. It is also likely that there will be a second Windrush for the children of migrants, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said in this House on 2 July. The Government’s promises on EU nationals’ rights mean nothing if they are not backed by primary legislation. They should be granted automatic settled status. The Bill does neither.
To lead a recovery from Covid, the Government are promoting investment in construction and infrastructure, highly dependent on skilled labour from the EU, yet they have no effective strategy for domestic skills-based programmes, which take years to deliver results. By ending free movement, the UK will become less accessible to highly skilled EEA migrants, on whom we have depended for years. The Huawei debacle has illustrated that the “global Britain” assumed by leave in the referendum campaign no longer exists. Our legal, economic and trading relationship with the EU—the world’s biggest, richest market, right on our doorstep—which is in no way settled, should remain our most important for years to come. Our immigration system should reflect that, not the other way around.
Another huge consequence of the Bill is that, as a direct consequence of the lack of reciprocal agreements on citizens’ rights, 66 million UK nationals will lose the benefits of their EU citizenship, their rights to travel freely and to live, work and study elsewhere in our European home. Frankly, this is all a shambolic disgrace.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I believe our nation welcomes the broad thrust of this Bill, as I do, but in the short time available, I will pick out just three points. First, I suspect that all noble Lords are well aware of the challenge with care workers. There is no doubt that there needs to be some transition, some amendment to how we deal with care workers. We have 8% of roles in adult social care vacant at the moment: 122,000. In addition, 8% of the social care workforce have an EU identity—et cetera.
It seems to me that Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to mention just three countries that face a very similar problem, have found what they believe to be a fair answer to meet this challenge—which is not a challenge that can be dealt with in five minutes. I have been a Member of Parliament, as have a number of my colleagues sitting in the Chamber this afternoon. We know about care homes, old people’s homes and nursing homes, so we know you cannot adjust them furiously in a few minutes. But I say to my noble friends on the Front Benches that we have to find an answer.
The other aspect of the NHS is doctor recruitment. We have had far too few young men and women entering the medical profession. It is highly oversubscribed, but—I am sorry to say this; I might be seen to be sexist—60% of the intake today is female, and, of those, well over half only ever work part time, so that is not an answer. We need to increase the intake to our medical schools.
My noble friend Lord Lilley mentioned nursing. What was the figure he gave: 25,000 nurses applying to nursing schools turned down last year? We have to find an answer to this. If we do not, the figure of 29% of doctors working in NHS hospitals coming from overseas will never be solved. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: I hope that will be looked at.
Finally, a number of colleagues in the House know that I am closely involved with Sri Lanka. I know a fair bit about illegal immigration; I know about self-harm; I know about alleged torture; and it is still happening. I am sorry to say that: self-harm is still happening. That is not good for the individuals involved and it is putting money into the pockets of people that it should not be, so I should like that investigated, and I will be supplying my noble friend with some information about that.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Bill includes extraordinary powers for Ministers to make changes to primary legislation. It does so without any safeguards or restrictions on how they may be exercised. These powers were described as “very significant” by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Refom Committee, and it rightly expressed concern. I am concerned too. This legislation, even if it is narrow in scope, is seen as laying the foundations for a new immigration system. If that is the case, this is an opportunity to ensure that it is underpinned by principles and purpose that will guide the exercise of immigration powers and ensure that it is compliant with fundamental rights.
Our immigration system is becoming responsible for a vastly increased number of people and applications, but is the system up to the task? Apparently not; the Windrush scandal shows that. The Law Commission recently highlighted the complexity of the Immigration Rules. The system is in need of reform, and this is an opportunity to make it compliant with fundamental rights and, in the words of the Home Secretary, to make it firmer, simpler and fair. It is an opportunity to have a system which supports refugee family reunion and takes steps towards ending immigration detention, among other things.
With regard to family reunion, in Committee on the Bill in the other place, the Immigration Minister, Kevin Foster, stated that the Government are committed to the principle of family reunion and supporting vulnerable children. These words should be matched with action. Currently, the Dublin regulation includes transfers for the purposes of family reunion, but at the end of the Brexit transition period this route for family reunion may be lost. This is an opportunity to amend domestic legislative rules and provide a legal and safe means for vulnerable individuals to join families, and to mitigate some of the risks of leaving the Dublin system. With regard to detention, this is an opportunity to significantly improve the law by providing a statutory limit of 28 days for any person to be held in detention.
Finally, I wish to raise an issue which has been drawn to my attention by English UK, the national association of English language teachers. The current situation is that EU, EEA and Swiss citizens can use ID cards in lieu of passports to enter the UK under free movement rules. The Government plan to scrap the EU ID card entry by 2021. This threatens to deter EU and EEA students, particularly junior students under 18. This could lead to a downturn of juniors coming here; we might lose them to Ireland or Malta. About 260,000 students travelling to the UK to study are under 18. Many do not have passports. The cost and bureaucracy of obtaining them for a short period is prohibitive.
Four hundred English schools bring in 550,000 students every year and inject about £1.4 billion into the economy. The benefits to the economy of the UK and to UK soft power are evident. The future of English schools is already in danger due to Covid, and if no action is taken on ID cards, we may see closure of those schools. A small amendment, such as creating a passport-free joint travel document which could be used by a group of students travelling together with the group leader, would ease the situation and minimise delays at the border. The security risks of juniors are minimal, as they will be travelling as a group with a leader, so I hope this small amendment will be accepted in the course of the Bill’s passage.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, immigration policy has been controversial, often bitterly controversial, in this country for more than 130 years, since the waves of Jewish immigration in response to the pogroms in Russia in the 1890s. Looking at policy since then, we see that there have been periods of substantial immigration that have led to civic reactions against it and then a closing down of immigration.
The last time we went through a process similar to the one we are going through at the moment was in the 1960s when, in response to the substantial immigration from the Commonwealth, there was a big social reaction, bitter political controversy caused by it and, in the two Commonwealth immigration Acts of the 1960s, an almost complete cessation of immigration. From the late 1960s until the expansion of the European Union in the early 2000s, there was almost no net migration into this country. Looking at the challenges that we have faced and the situation the Government are responding to in the context of Brexit, it is always important to get the history right to understand what the right policy is for the future.
What went wrong after 2003 was not too much Europe but too little. What we should have done with the expansion of the European Union to central and eastern Europe—I bear my share of responsibility for this—was to have implemented the same seven-year transitional controls as virtually the whole of the rest of the European Union implemented. If we had actually been a team player in the European Union, which we have been so bad at doing for almost the entirety of our membership, I do not believe we would have had the social pressures which led to the big immigration concerns about Brexit after 2010. We were at fault in that, which is why Britain became the overwhelming focus of immigration after 2004, and it was not properly managed.
However, two things were going on at that time. One was net migration into this country from central and eastern Europe, predominantly—although there had been earlier waves from Italy and Spain, they were of smaller numbers. However, the other crucial development, which is why the whole system is unstable is, of course, that Brits were going freely to travel, live, study and settle abroad. The bit which will make this system entirely unstable is that anything we do in response to migrants coming from the rest of the European Union will be done in respect of the more than 1 million Brits who have already settled and many others who want to take advantage of similar rights in the future. When the public wake up to the fact that their own rights to travel, study, settle and work across the European continent will suffer in exactly the same ways we restrict rights to others in Europe coming here, this situation will become controversial in this country and not just internationally.
Of all the speeches made so far, the one which the noble Baroness and the Home Secretary should be really worried about is that of the noble Lord, Lord Green. He is correct. My analysis of the points-based system with the salary threshold is that the Government do not in fact have any control. In the guise of taking back control, they do not have control over the situation hereafter. We now have a massively unstable system, potentially millions of new immigrants coming from the wider world beyond the European Union, and a British population that will be increasingly disgruntled when they realise that their own emigration and travel rights across the rest of Europe will suffer. I therefore see this as a staging post in a very unstable situation with regard to immigration in the future.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is clear from the Minister’s introduction that she knows how damaging the Bill is. The Government deploy a circular argument. They say they are delivering on the referendum result, and that immigration was a factor in that result, as if members of the Government had not been the ones who helped persuade the British public that leaving the EU was a good idea, and that there were risks of huge increases in immigration if we did not.
We have been clapping for NHS, social care and other essential staff. The Government are belatedly realising how important they are. It is specious for the Government now to say what they are saying about pay in the social care sector when they have not addressed it in funding. What will they say when those helping to underpin, for example, our virtual system, leave? Will they say that they just did not know? There are so many others in so many other sectors, from agriculture to warehouse distribution. We depend on the City of London for the tax revenues required for the NHS and social care, let alone the so-called levelling up of the north. Yet here the City of London is undermined.
We are in the middle of a pandemic, with things likely to get worse this winter. We choose this moment to fail to secure a deal with the EU that keeps us in the customs union and the single market, or any but the most basic of arrangements, further damaging our better businesses. Then we make it worse by introducing this immigration system into an economy which, prior to coronavirus, had record levels of employment. The Bill gives business totally inadequate time to prepare. Why is so much in secondary legislation, which is so difficult to scrutinise? It shows how unprepared the Government are that they are seeking to do it this way. They are beginning to realise the unintended consequences of their system.
The Chancellor said that he was not driven by ideology. He has recognised the support required for our economy. If only his colleagues in the Home Office could be as pragmatic, and spend their time protecting the country from the effects of that referendum. The proposed new system is deeply damaging to Britain, to the British economy and to those whom the Government say they wish to help.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and I pay tribute to the Minister and her team for the immense work they have put into preparing for this stage of the proceedings.
I declare an interest in that I am half Danish—the product of a union between a Scottish father and a Danish mother. There are deep historic ties between the UK and Denmark and I regret that they will be broken at one swoop in the Bill. I too take very seriously the words of the noble Lord, Lord Green. My noble friend the Minister referred in particular to the vote. I am sure that she is right that this is the general folklore as to why people voted in the referendum for us to leave the European Union. However, did they vote to see EU net migration fall to now well below 100,000 and to see non-EU migration rise to 250,000 in the same period? I am not entirely sure whether the public have yet grasped the consequences of the vote.
I will put one or two specific questions to my noble friend and would like to explore them further in later proceedings on the Bill. Should we not be making provision for a grace period to clarify the rights of EU and EEA citizens who live here and who may be caught out between 1 January 2021, when the new provisions come into effect, and 30 June 2021, when more detailed subsequent statutory instruments and guidance will come into effect under the terms of the withdrawal agreement? It would be helpful to have that clarified, as obviously both those citizens and their legal advisers will be concerned by this.
I echo the comments of other noble Lords who flagged up category of the low-skilled worker, which will come back and cause the Government and the country enormous problems. All of us are concerned about the healthcare workers, and I mention the 29% of doctors working in the NHS hospitals, to whom we are enormously grateful, and the 12% of non-British EU health care workers who will be caught out by these provisions. There are also the farm workers, who pick the vegetables and fruit at this time of year. If my noble friend could address my concerns in that regard, I will be very grateful. I hope the Minister will also have regard to a plea from businesses about the lack of time until the new provisions come into effect. Will better guidance be made available before the end of the transition period?
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I acknowledge the comments from the Minister and welcome the Government’s intention to make significant improvements to the pay and conditions of social care workers. The health and care visa route recently announced excludes social care worker from its list of skilled workers. In Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, where a points system like that proposed by the UK Government operates, they have included an alternative immigration route for social care workers.
In April 2017, the New Zealand Government increased care and support workers’ pay by 21% to improve recruitment and retention in the sector. That also resulted in greater parity between social care and health workers and meant that migrants in the sector were more likely to meet the income threshold under New Zealand’s points-based immigration system. In Canada, like in the UK, social care workers are in demand across the country. There they are listed in the target occupations list, which means that migrants with experience or relevant qualifications can gain a Canadian permanent resident visa.
If the Government will not create a visa route to allow social care workers into this country, prior to the new system being introduced next January they must develop a strategy for social care that will ensure an adequate supply of labour in the sector. Nearly 8% of roles in adult social care are currently vacant, equivalent to 122,000 vacancies at any one time. We know that the NHS is a direct competitor for staff in some roles and can offer enhanced pay levels and a national career structure. For example, nurses working in the NHS earn 7% more than those working in adult social care—a gap that is set to grow under the recent NHS pay deal.
Parity of recognition for social care staff is acknowledged as important. It is more than important; it is essential. I hope the Government will recognise this and act accordingly.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol [V]
My Lords, migration is a natural part of life and an experience shared between all living things on our planet. Moreover, for those of us who trace our faith back to Abraham, migration has been a continuous and inescapable feature of our human history.
In this context, I welcome any debate to discern together what guiding principles and moral framework should underpin a new system for managing migration. However, given the narrowness of the Bill, I hope we will not lack further opportunities for healthy public debate, and that the reservation of so much to secondary legislation will not hide future policy from scrutiny and discussion.
Research indicates that a hostile immigration environment does not deter migration. Rather, it makes migrants more vulnerable to abuse. I record my particular concern about the lack of provision for victims of human trafficking and modern-day slavery in the Bill. Indeed, this legislation could see crucial protections for the most vulnerable in society being lost, without appropriate replacement. I think in particular of the EU anti-trafficking directive, as the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McColl, indicated.
However, it is not just victims of modern-day slavery who are extremely vulnerable. Asylum seekers and refugees continue to be denied the right to work. It seems very strange that the Government continue to deny people waiting on a decision from the Home Office the opportunity to support themselves—and to pay taxes.
Meanwhile, the Government are keen that the United Kingdom should attract the brightest and best from overseas. Many people displaced by conflict or persecution have valuable professional skills in areas such as medicine and engineering but are stuck in refugee camps, unable to use those skills to support their families and rebuild their lives. I welcome the Government’s openness to considering a displaced talent visa to level up access to labour market mobility for those displaced from their homelands. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I look forward to further discussions in Committee.
Finally, I highlight the lack of provision for children in the Bill. According to Children’s Society research, many local authorities are not aware of how many children in their care will be affected by our exit from the European Union. This would leave an already vulnerable group of children and young people without recourse to public funds liable to immigration detention or forced removal from their home and the country they have grown up in.
Migration is a constant feature of our nation’s story. Our shared task is to discern how we can create a system that benefits all.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, although I too am pleased to speak in this Second Reading, I am sorry that we have this Bill at all. Like so many of our fellow citizens, I regret it. It is a Bill that makes provision to end the excellent free movement that we had under EU law in exchange for what I believe to be a punitive points-based system.
Like my noble friend Lord Rosser and others, I will concentrate on the care sector. We have seen how much care workers do under the pressures of the virus, and how the problems of funding and security have created problems for the care sector and shown how it is often treated as a poor relative of the NHS. We need to give more consideration to the care sector’s value and to work to keep its workforce; otherwise they will continue to be an afterthought in immigration, as well as other areas. As others have said, part of the new points-based immigration system disadvantages them. They will be excluded from the new health and care visa. Even senior care workers would not qualify with the minimum salary threshold. It is unjust and unfair, particularly on top of the lack of support they have had during the Covid epidemic. I hope this matter can be dealt with and looked at more carefully in Committee and on Report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and my noble friend Lord McConnell, did, I will touch on whether this applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. As a Scots Peer, I think that immigration must remain principally a UK-wide competence, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said. I strongly disagree with the SNP’s proposal for an alternative immigration system for Scotland. That is very different from the very limited scheme that my noble friend Lord McConnell introduced, which he described earlier. Scotland’s immigration needs are not significantly different from other parts of the United Kingdom. Anyway, how could we prevent immigrants moving around the UK without border controls? The Deputy Speaker will know and I am sure that he would agree that the last thing we need are border controls at Gretna and Berwick.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, this squalid little Bill would end our participation in Europe’s greatest post-war achievement: freedom for all of us to live, love and work without hindrance anywhere in 27 countries. I deeply regret its loss.
We have to wonder how we have plummeted so far since the heady days of the London Olympics. In just eight years, that pride in our country and the welcome we gave to the world have given way to division and cynicism. What has changed is that the cabal of leave campaigners, who cheated and lied their way through the referendum, went on to capture the Conservative Party and then the Government. They have not changed their shameful methods. They are still peddling the beguiling but delusional myth of British exceptionalism, claiming that everything they do is world-beating when it manifestly is not. The hard truth is that their stewardship has taken us into the relegation zone of the world Covid league. When they combine that with a hard Brexit, we will tumble out of contention altogether. Our excessive death toll from the virus was caused by the PM’s absence in February while rearranging his marital affairs, his dithering over lockdown in March and his adviser’s barely concealed fetish for herd immunity.
Yesterday’s ISC report described Russia as
“a muddy nexus between business and corruption and state power”,
but this sounds a bit familiar closer to home. Here, we have rushed planning decisions to help party donors, huge untendered PPE contracts with unsuitable companies and the ruling party being dangerously close to wealthy, Kremlin-connected Russians. Indeed, Mr Johnson has a penchant for oligarchs’ hospitality. At the risk of gifting them kompromat in 2018 he cavorted with them, without his security detail, but with a former Russian spy, at an Italian palazzo. At the same time, the citizens of Salisbury were reeling from Russia’s use of deadly nerve agent on their streets.
The Prime Minister’s chief adviser, who, remarkably, retains his post while being literally in contempt of Parliament, and whose mantra is “Never admit mistakes, never apologise, never resign”, has three years in Moscow on his CV. Is it then any wonder that these people buried the ISC report before the election, or that they are still resisting the cross-party calls for an investigation into Russian interference in the referendum? What on earth could they possibly have to hide?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I shall strike a rather less partisan note. Like my noble friend Lord Naseby, I welcome the Bill because it is clearly a necessary part of the Government’s attempts to reduce the large-scale immigration we have had over the past 20 years to a more sustainable level. Large-scale immigration is damaging to Britain in a number of ways. First, it reduces the quality of life in these islands. The UK is a heavily populated country. The population is growing at its fastest for more than a century and two-thirds of that growth comes from immigration. The extra people have to be provided for, and that has many adverse effects. For example, an area of countryside the size of Cornwall has been lost to development since 1990. All this is well set out in a pamphlet by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which I recommend the House reads carefully. It is much more interesting than most government pamphlets and much better illustrated.
Secondly, large-scale immigration damages the economy. Most obviously it deters businesses from investing in training and apprenticeships for the domestic population. Thirdly, immigration on the present scale also increases inequality because the lowest paid suffer most from immigration. Fourthly, large-scale immigration makes the problem of maintaining social cohesion far worse. Fifthly, there is a moral point. What right has Britain to scour the world for skilled people when they are often desperately needed in their own countries? Finally, British people have repeatedly shown that they do not want large-scale immigration at this level. Despite this, the Labour Government under Tony Blair went ahead with large-scale immigration. It harmed the country, it cost Labour votes on a massive scale and it increased distrust of politicians because people felt they had not been consulted—and, indeed, they had not been.
This is an enabling Bill and does not set out the Immigration Rules. Like the noble Lords, Lord Green of Deddington and Lord Adonis, I hope that when the Minister considers these comments she will look at what they said because I am afraid we have insufficient control of this situation and we have given employers too much control. None the less, I am delighted that the Government have said that they will keep the situation under review and will act quickly when necessary. I hope my noble friend will confirm that in her wind-up speech.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I start by explaining that I am married to someone who has gone through the EU settled status scheme after having lived here for more than 25 years. His experience as a German national was relatively straight- forward, albeit expensive. The dénouement came when his citizenship ceremony took place. Other new migrants had been given crib cards showing the words of the national anthem, but they were unable to sing it when the audio system broke down in the town hall in the middle of their rendering of “God Save the Queen”. Suffice it to say that while we are good at most big things, we tend not to be able to pull off small but symbolic things very well in this country.
Turning to the Bill, I shall pick up the thread of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about data and statistics that will determine the future rights of some EU citizens. The Financial Times recently showed up the discrepancy between the Office for National Statistics data and the reality of the number of EU citizens in the UK who may be eligible for settled status. According to the ONS, some 3.4 million people from the EU are eligible for settlement. However, the number of EU migrants who have applied to stay after Brexit already exceeds the official estimate. At the end of May, there had been some 3.6 million applications. The FT surveyed EU embassies and discovered that the UK Government had underestimated the EU-born population of the UK by more than 500,000 people.
This is reminiscent of Mr Blair’s breezy estimates about how few people would move to the UK when people from the A7 countries were allowed to come, but it is more serious because of its consequences. When the deadline for applications comes on 30 June 2021, there are likely to be people who will lose their legal status overnight and face wrongful deportation. I understand that the Home Office has said that it will take a “flexible and pragmatic approach” and that anyone with “reasonable grounds” for missing the deadline will be given further opportunities to apply. I would like to hear from the Minister what the flexibility and reasonable grounds criteria will be. What opportunities will be available and, more importantly, will they be publicised to EU nationals and their family members? That further opportunity is bound not to be taken up if people do not know about it.
In Committee, I will press for an improvement in the granting of visa for the tech industry. When I was chairing the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee, we heard from numerous groups about the importance of a fast-track, simplified system for people who establish start-ups or work in the fintech sector. There is a vast amount of data on the success of those born abroad in driving growth in the fastest growing companies. Half of the UK’s fastest growing companies have at least one foreign-born co-founder, according to studies. As time is short, I shall pick up on this theme in Committee. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my questions.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in the time I have today I shall restrict my comments to two issues. The first is care workers. As noted by many noble Lords, there are around 120,000 jobs currently vacant in the adult social care sector and around 250,000 social care workers are EU or non-EU nationals. The immigration system proposed in the Bill will seriously undermine the social care workforce. It puts up barriers that will stop people from overseas coming to the UK to work in adult social care. This will lead to an even higher level of staff shortages in the care system, which is already stretched thin and experiencing a high number of staff vacancies. It is also wrong to exclude care workers from the qualifying list for the new health and care visa. While the senior care worker role is included, the salary threshold will make the vast majority of care workers ineligible to apply. Will the Minster set out clearly in her response why the Government are reluctant to provide a sector-specific visa route which allows international recruitment into social care? Such a route exists in other countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, so why is such a route not being considered for the UK, especially as our need is as great as theirs?
The second issue I want to touch on is EU children in care. I echo the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. Thousands of children in care and care leavers could be at risk of being left unlawfully resident in the UK next year without co-ordinated action between central government and local authorities. The Government are the corporate parent of these children and should act as any parent would. They have a responsibility to ensure that all children in their care receive the settled status to which they are entitled. Applying under the EU settlement scheme is not simple and straightforward. For children in care and care leavers, gathering the required evidence has been a challenge. Will the Minister give the House up-to-date figures on the number of children in care who have applied under the scheme to date and indicate how many of them have been denied settled status? If she does not have the figures to hand, perhaps she will write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library. Will the Government commit to put in place the processes and policies necessary to guarantee that all EU children in care and care leavers receive the permanent immigration status to which they are entitled?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank all the NGOs and businesses which have been in touch with me regarding the Bill.
The Bill allows the Government to create a new immigration statement by statutory instrument. The Bill is asking for a blank cheque, but on something as important as this, proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential. The Bill also dispenses with the consent of the Scottish Parliament to social security co-ordination measures. Not only is the content of the Bill bad, it is a constitutional outrage that concentrates executive power in the UK by taking control over the consent of nations and Parliament at the expense of child refugees, migrant workers and others.
Further, the Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that unaccompanied children, spouses or vulnerable dependent adults who have a family member legally present in the United Kingdom have the same right to be reunited in the United Kingdom as they would have had under Commission Regulation EU 604/2013.
The deadline for applying to the EU settlement scheme must be extended and a comprehensive plan implemented to protect, as many others have said, all children in care and care leavers to whom this provision is applicable. Furthermore, a child has the right to citizenship in UK nationality law and they should not be charged more than £1,000 to make it a reality. The current citizenship fee for children should be scrapped. I shall also support the amendments on refugee children that will be tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I share all the criticisms made by my noble friends but I shall focus on the potentially hugely detrimental impact on the higher education, cultural and tech sectors of the ending of EEA freedom of movement and on how government needs to take the necessary action required by those sectors so that the impact can be at least partially mitigated.
International students and academic staff contribute hugely to our universities and the UK as a whole. We have recently lost ground as a destination, and the new points-based system and Covid-19 are extremely likely to further damage recruitment. The creative and culture sector makes a major contribution to our lives and economy, but highly talented individuals in this sector are often paid salaries lower than the UK median. As regards the important tech sector, 13% of the UK’s digital tech workforce is international. The UK faces a chronic digital skills gap, and access to talent is the number one issue in the sector.
Given the issues faced by those sectors, will the Government take these steps? Will they extend the current, or make special, arrangements for EU students for the calendar year 2021? Will they confirm and ensure better promotion of the rules for the new two-year post-study work visa? Under the new minimum salary requirements, only 27% of current international academic staff will be eligible, and the figure is even lower in the creative sector. For each sector, will the Government therefore explore a further reduction in the current income threshold and provide greater flexibility for eligibility? For the creative sector, will they extend the permitted paid engagement scheme, allowing multiple visits and permit-free festival arrangements for EU citizens? Will they also seek a reciprocal touring visa with the EU to enable creators and performers to travel temporarily and take their equipment with them tax free?
The new system will place significant burdens on SMEs in particular. Will the Government give businesses and individuals time, guidance and support to adapt to the new system and provide a much more streamlined system for processing visas? Will they bring costs in line with other countries? The total costs are high. In addition to salary costs, they include the cost of a sponsor licence and a visa, the immigration skills charge and an immigration health surcharge, all of which make recruiting workers internationally much more challenging.
In just these three sectors, despite the huge detriment potentially caused by the new system, a number of crucial mitigating steps could be taken if there is the political will. I hope that the Minister can respond accordingly.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the way in which she introduced this debate. However, I echo the concerns expressed around the House about the Henry VIII powers in Clauses 4 and 5, which seem to deny parliamentarians the right to a say over the new Immigration Rules in the future. I fear that that is not the kind of “taking back control” that fits with our tradition of parliamentary sovereignty.
The Bill is silent on how the changes that it makes in relation to Irish citizens will affect the rights of Northern Irish citizens under the Good Friday agreement. However, I want to focus my brief remarks on the issue raised by many others across the House: the implications for the social care workforce and the elderly, disabled or frail individuals who rely on them for their basic quality of daily life.
I support the desire for employers to focus on investing in their staff, providing training and increasing the prestige of the care workforce, thus making it an attractive profession, but that will take a long time. Even in 2018, the National Audit Office highlighted the lack of any updated DHSC strategy for the adult social care workforce. Nearly 20% of that workforce is from overseas but, despite that, there are more than 120,000 vacancies and staff turnover is around one-third each year. The new points-based system will not include those workers.
I support the aim of attracting the very best migrants from around the world but, unlike in the Australian and New Zealand points systems, our limit of £25,000 a year suggests that those working in social care are not considered to be skilled or valuable enough to be worthy of British residence. However, low pay does not mean low value. What will happen if the domestic workforce cannot be trained? We cannot ask these frail, vulnerable individuals to just wait until the training programme works out. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, powerfully explained, this is not about care homes alone; it is about those who live in their own homes and who rely on some immigrants to help look after them.
The domestic workforce is unlikely to respond quickly or positively to work in the care sector—a sector that is underfunded and where workers are underpaid relative to the NHS. Unless we have the Government’s long-term plan for social care, for which we are still waiting a year after it was supposed to be oven-ready, we cannot seriously expect the social care workforce to be filled domestically. I urge my noble friend to listen to the words of my noble friend Lord Naseby and others and introduce a transitional scheme that will help encourage immigration for social care.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
Before I start, I wish to say that I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
I shall focus my remarks on how immigration reform will affect science and innovation and the health and care sector. The Government have often said that they want the UK to be a science superpower. Apart from funding and international collaboration, which are crucial, this sector relies heavily on our ability to attract, recruit and retain global scientific talent. Thirty-one per cent of UK Nobel prize winners in science where born outside the UK, and 50% of CRUK-supported PhD students are from outside the UK, rising to 70% of post- doctoral researchers. In part, the Government have recognised this by introducing the global talent visa, but serious concerns remain about the rest of the system.
I will focus on two issues. First, I want to talk about the significant cost of the system for employers and researchers, early-stage researchers and technicians, who will be punished by the new rules. Even researchers gaining a Global Talent visa will face costs of over £2,500. This is 10 times the comparable cost in Germany, the US and Australia, and seven times that in France. The UK will be the most expensive scientific destination in the world. Much of this cost is also associated with health costs. The impact is even greater for those not included in the Global Talent visa due to heavy visa costs, which can be as much as £8,500, and that does not include the costs related to family, which will be above that. The points-based system further disadvantages those whose salary level does not reach £25,000, such as lab technicians—a workforce crucial to science and innovation.
Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the effect that the Bill will have on health and social care workers. The mutual recognition of professional qualifications has played a vital role in enabling EU doctors to work in the UK. The legislation would remove that recognition, which applies also to other countries, and would have a significant effect on recruitment, and not just of EU doctors.
My final comment relates to the lack of any migratory route for unregistered care staff—a point already mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross, Lady Kennedy and Lady Altmann. The sector is already in crisis, with an estimated 110,000 nursing vacancies in social care alone. As has already been said, the classification of social care workers as low skilled devalues their contribution and their skills.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments and the opportunity to explore these matters further in Committee.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, has withdrawn from the speakers’ list. The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
When this Bill emerges, it will define our place and reputation. Will we be proud to have been here? As the verse at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty says:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
Is that what we want to be remembered for? Or will it be: bring me those who earn between £25,000 and £30,000 per year? Or, bring me those we think of as being best for us? Is it not better to welcome those who are most in need in the world? About 200 or 300 members of staff at the House of Lords earn less than that minimum income that is required to come to the UK—those wonderful people. Need, not greed, should define us, so that people come to us because we want to welcome them. We are trying to build a world which is fit for children to live in, yet we are far, far away from that.
I suggest we look at what will happen with income in Committee, and say that we have to mend this. We have to make this an Immigration Bill with a human face. Thinking of those detained in our immigration centres, we know we are the only country in Europe that has indefinite detention. When the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited some of those detention centres in May this year, it was found that one person had been detained for three years, while another 12 had been detained for 12 months. There is something so wrong with what we are doing with our immigrants. This Bill gives us a chance, so that history will say we took a step that was humane, kindly and concerned. Let us take it.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, someone needs to say it. Those countries of Europe closest to us, our neighbours, are the ones we have most in common with. We should not be contemplating this Bill—I deeply regret it and find it totally depressing that we are considering it.
The first question I want to ask is of the Labour Party. There is a majority in the House, if Labour supports it, for this Bill to be improved. We saw in the Business and Planning Bill that Labour did not support any amendments, because it wanted it to get through without a Third Reading debate. My first challenge is to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, when he winds up for the Labour Party. I am not asking for specifics, but are we going to see the same again, or will Labour support reasonable amendments to this Bill?
My second point is that 1.2 million British citizens live in Europe. They have genuine concerns. They want three amendments to this Bill. The first would prevent the removal of the existing right of UK citizens who moved to the EEA to return with the families they have made there. The second and third would prevent the Bill’s regulation-making powers being used to breach the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Is the Minister prepared to meet representatives of Britain in Europe to discuss their concerns?
My next set of points is from Unison, the union that represents many of the low-paid workers who have been spoken about by noble Lords today. Many of these workers uphold our services, which would not exist without them. There are a number of areas where improvements are needed, not only in the £25,600 threshold, but also in other areas to help low-paid workers. I hope that the Minister will be significantly sympathetic to the need to draft provisions in this area.
Finally, we seem to have privatised the immigration system, with one great notable exception. We have all these difficulties: we need to sort people out and reduce migration— apart from 3 million people from Hong Kong, who, somehow, we can fit in with no problem at all.
This is not a very logical Bill, and I hope we can improve it as it goes through the House. If we can, we can at least make a depressing Bill just about adequate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this Bill brings me great sadness. It embeds and promotes a Brexit that has all the hallmarks of a disaster for the people of the United Kingdom, which, I will remind the House, the people of Northern Ireland did not vote for. This legislation ends the free movement of citizens of the EU, the EEA and Switzerland into the UK. At a stroke, that diminishes the UK, breaks family ties, damages our economy, creates huge obstacles for employers and degrades international research, co-operation and understanding. Frankly, it is a powerful demonstration of how common sense within the British Government has finally slipped its moorings. It makes aliens of European citizens, with whom we have shared common bonds for many years. For me, that is a tragedy, and I do not believe it is what people voted for in the referendum of 2016.
I have particular concerns about specific parts of this Bill that go beyond the obvious risk of creating another Windrush disaster. That would once again show that there are times when the UK’s callousness is matched only by its incompetence. The ending of freedom of movement will cause severe disruption to UK citizens living in the EU, an issue that has already been referred to by other noble Lords. It will also make European nationals coming here potentially subject to the full force of our harsh and often disproportionate immigration detention procedures. I would like the Minister to outline how the Government intend to address these deficiencies.
I note that the opportunity to regularise the position of Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, who do not also hold UK nationality, has not been taken in this Bill, despite the safeguards of the common travel area. This potentially leads these citizens open to deportation. The Good Friday agreement guarantees their rights under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is time for the Government to fulfil their obligations here. I call on the Minister to address this particular issue and how the Government intend to remedy this gap in the common travel area provisions.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, without the economic and cultural benefits of the immigrant community to this country over the decades—15% of our population is black, Asian and minority ethnic—this country, with 1% of the world’s population, would not be the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.
This week is the Joint Economic and Trade Committee meeting between the UK and India. As chancellor of the University of Birmingham, president of the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) and co-chairman of the APPG for International Students, I welcome the recent Government support for international students through the reintroduction of the two-year post-graduation work visa—I helped to spearhead this in this House in 2007, it came into place in 2008, was taken away in 2012, and has now come back—and the three-year visa for PhD students. Will the Minister say whether the Government will consider the graduate route as part of an international graduate employability strategy, to be developed in collaboration with the education sector and employers, that provides clear guidance for UK employers on how to employ students via the graduate route?
I ask the UK Government please to exclude students from the net migration statistics. Many of us have requested that for years; all our competitor nations do it. Including them is very misleading, as research has shown that more than 95% of international students return after their studies for postgraduate work. For example, when people enter, they say that they are coming to study, but when they are asked on the way out, anybody who worked afterwards says that they were working. This creates an illusion of illegally overstaying international students. The lag between arriving and leaving also means that growing numbers of international students exporting UK education shows an increase in net migration.
Can the Government include India in the list of the 25 preferred countries for the UK tier 4 visa rules being relaxed? For example, China is now included in that list. Furthermore, international students generate business and tourist visas. Can the UK Government also reduce the visa fees for a two-year multiple entry business or tourist visa for Indians to the same level as that for the Chinese? Four years ago, this was reduced for China to £85, whereas it is still more than four times that for Indians. This reduction would help to increase the number of business and tourist visitors from India in general, of course.
In April 2015, we introduced exit checks at our borders. Are the Government using those checks to work out their immigration figures or do they still rely on the International Passenger Survey figures? The noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about data. In August last year, Iain Bell, the Deputy National Statistician at the Office for National Statistics, said that
“the weaknesses in the data were due partly to the International Passenger Survey—a poll of travellers at ports and airports around the UK, which is used to extrapolate wider migration patterns.”
The Financial Times stated:
“The UK’s official statistics agency has announced it is downgrading its estimate of the country’s net migration to the status of ‘experimental’ data after discovering ‘limitations’ in the way the figures are calculated”
using the IPS. Can the Minister address this?
Finally, many noble Lords have mentioned that coronavirus has placed a spotlight on social care and that it is often treated poorly compared to the NHS in terms of support. It is important that the sector is also not an afterthought when it comes to immigration. Social care should be treated as equal to the NHS regarding visa exceptions.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to talk about unaccompanied migrant children. These children, and teenagers, are alone. They have fled war zones and famine. Many of them have been abused, sexually abused and assaulted. They are trapped in camps in Greece and northern France, but have family members in the UK who could look after them. As a country, we need to demonstrate our commitment to these children.
Under the current EU procedures, their rights are enshrined in a network of obligations reinforced by international agreement. When we leave the European Union at the end of December, those protections will fall away. The political declaration of 17 October 2019 between the European Union and the UK set out the framework of what can be negotiated in the future agreement. On the basis of that declaration, the Commission was given a negotiation mandate, but there is no mention in it of asylum, refugees or unaccompanied children. The Commission has competency in this area so, as I understand it, there is no question of negotiating with individual member states after we leave in December.
Therefore, to continue to offer a safe route for these children to join family members in the UK, we must have clear Immigration Rules. We need to amend this immigration Bill to ensure that, in taking back control, as the Government say repeatedly, unaccompanied children are not forgotten. We are talking about children and teenagers who are alone, frightened, isolated, vulnerable and desperate. Without safe legal routes to sanctuary, they will be easy prey for trafficking and smuggling gangs.
The Government’s position is to weaken these children’s rights. Their current proposals are discretionary, not mandatory, with no objective criteria on which to base an application and no rights of appeal, leaving a child in danger and in limbo. Time is running out for these children. We have to do better. Many improvements need to be made to the Bill. In particular, protecting the rights of these children is paramount. Are we a country that values, respects and protects children, or are we not? Will we fail in our duty to help these children and young people? I hope not.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am one of the people who finds this Bill to end free movement a sad and shameful moment in your Lordships’ House. I was proud to sit on these Benches when I listened to the inspiring and outstanding speech that opened this debate, from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I was encouraged by the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, from the Labour Front Bench; I thought it sensible and liberal with a small “l”, if I may say so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I hope that the Labour Party can maintain that view as the Bill progresses.
It occurred to me that, over the last 50 years, a large number of families have become pan-European families. I was quite surprised when I worked it out to discover something I simply had not noticed: over half of my own family—a household of three—and our extended family, including cousins, aunties, grandchildren and so on, possess European Union passports. There is a large number of such families in Europe and here, including British families, all of whom will find life increasingly difficult as their families branch out and become more complex as time goes on.
I have four quick questions for the Minister. The first is one that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked. What guarantees are the Government giving to people who did not achieve their settled status by the end of June? This is a serious matter.
Secondly, what will happen to people with pre-settled status if they do not convert? Will they simply continue their pre-settled status for ever, or do they have a guarantee that serious things will not start happening to them?
Thirdly, the Minister will know that 10% of the most recent applications were refused; there was a minor spike in refusals in the last lot. Can she tell us why that took place and what the reasons for refusal are?
Finally, the Law Commission suggested that the Immigration Rules need a thorough rewrite. In the spring, the Government issued a paper saying that they were preparing to do that in early 2021. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made and whether that deadline will be met? If it will, will this House have a chance to discuss the Immigration Rules thoroughly at draft stage, because they are so important?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, another important Bill with a potentially detrimental and permanent impact is being rushed through. Concerns are widespread, both in this House and among organisations that represent NHS front-line staff, the care sector and students, and business organisations that represent SMEs and the hospitality sector, including the Bangladesh Caterers Association.
These proposals shut the door on many of the people whom we clapped as heroes, yet the Government say that they will consolidate immigration law and the migrant’s voice. Immigration law experts are disturbed by the extortionate fees, which will penalise families and leave them impoverished. I share the disquiet expressed by many noble Lords at the Minister’s power to amend primary and secondary legislation without sufficient parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
As an officer of the APPG for International Students, I wish to refer to proposals to repeal free movement for EU students. Aside from those in our universities and private schools, 550,000 students come to the UK every year to learn English, contributing over £1.4 billion to our economy yearly. Over 60% of these students and over 59% of international staff in the HE sector come from EU countries.
The Bill would treat these students, who consider Britain an extension of their home country, on a par with other international students, removing their access to loan support. This would compromise our citizens in the EU in many respects. Will the Government consider some reciprocal arrangement to retain these EU students, to mitigate the many postponing commencing their courses as a result of the Covid crisis?
What expert advice are the Government receiving to ensure that the new points-based system will continue to welcome EU students as our neighbours without penalising them? To avoid any Windrush-like scandals, will all EU citizens, and non-EU family members eligible for the EU settlement scheme be provided with physical documentation as proof of their settled status? Without these, students will find it challenging to obtain jobs and accommodation in the future, and it will cause families to continue to exist on tenterhooks.
The Bill introduces a salary threshold detrimental to many NHS nurses and which definitely excludes care home workers, 100,000 of which are currently needed, as well as 93,000 people in the hospitality sector, including those in the curry industry. The Home Secretary made hyped-up promises of support to these people, who are excluded from the proposed list, during the Brexit campaign.
Finally, women make up more than two-thirds of the low-paid earners in this country who face financial uncertainty as a result of Covid-19 and the Bill. Have the Government considered what impact this policy will have on vulnerable women who have fled violence and are now working in this country?
Lord Wei (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I join others in welcoming the Bill; it has been a long time coming. Though I have seen and acknowledge the benefits of freedom of movement, clearly the world is different today from what it was 10 or 20 years ago, for better or worse. It is a more volatile and unstable place and there is a lot more economic migration. Therefore, it is only right that we design and shift to a system which is sovereign and based on skills—that is what this country needs.
I hope that, as we make this transition over the coming 12 months or so, we send a message to the world that we are still open to migrants and that we are not closing the shop or raising the drawbridge. In fact, I hope we can see migrants—such as me and my own family, who came here from Hong Kong in my father’s generation—as people who want to come and contribute to Britain, be a bridge to the rest of the world once they are here and be part of helping to level up the country, which I know is a government priority.
I will not dwell on the Henry VIII clauses, because it is important that the Government have the flexibility they need over the coming months. However, it is important that Parliament is involved in this process and in the evolution of our immigration system, and that the Government do not create policy on the fly, which there is a risk of given the scope of the powers the Bill might give.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, while this is clearly not a regional matter, certain regions could benefit as well as suffer if this policy is implemented poorly. For example, areas that are already wealthy may get some of the more skilled, talented and wealthier migrants, whereas there are parts of the country which really need an influx of talent from overseas. Do the Government have plans, particularly around free ports, that are envisaged to encourage that kind of shift?
Secondly, I am worried about capacity: what preparations have been made in the Home Office and the Border Force to cope with the change and the demand that may come? If we can get our act together, I am excited about the potential to harness technologies such as blockchain. Estonia, for example, even has e-citizens who cannot come to the country on a long-term basis but can make use of its law, business and the ability to set up shop in Estonia. Is reform coming to the Home Office to enable it to handle this demand, given that is has such a backlog of regular passports to process currently?
Could we one day shift to a system where we can match the demand from different industries in closer to real time? There is such a delay between knowing where the skills are needed and whether you can match them through local skills coming through the pipeline, or if you need to import labour from overseas. Technology such as blockchain and internet technologies may be able to facilitate better matching than we currently have.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have mentioned the medical profession, I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I reflect on the irony that, as we seem to be curtailing the migration of doctors from the EU to our country, we are repeating history, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, and returning to the developing world big time to recruit doctors for the NHS. It is also ironic that the new health and care visa excludes a great majority of care workers, who will not meet either the income or the skills threshold.
In the Minister’s opening remarks, there was surely a sense of irony too when she said how much the Government value social care. I do not think the Bill shows much appreciation of that profession. Ministers point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which said that the problems in the care sector are caused by a failure to offer competitive terms and conditions. I do not think we need reminding of how important skilled care worker jobs are, and we certainly want more people training and entering the care sector at a decent wage.
However, as UNISON said in its evidence, it is disingenuous of the Government to call for better wages and conditions in the sector when the Government are so influential on the financial health of care services. The rate paid by local authorities to care homes for people whose income is below the means-test threshold is highly dependent on grants from central government, which has been going down just as demand as has been going up. These rates have been tightly squeezed in the last decade and, as a result, self-funders pay exorbitant fees, which are in effect a subsidy for council-funded places. These self-funders get no support at all from the state and can see their assets run down considerably.
It is a Catch-22 situation. Essentially, the Home Office says that the care sector should recruit staff from people living in this country and pay them more, but the Department of Health, by its actions, is ensuring that there is no funding to enable this to happen. The Government have now had 10 years to sort this out. They had the Dilnot commission, they legislated for it and then would not put it into place. We had Mrs May’s promise in the 2017 election, which she withdrew. We keep hearing from the Government about a plan that will be brought forward—let us see it.
The thought that this plan, at a stroke, will deal with the immediate issues of the care sector is just blowing in the wind. We have 100,000 vacancies in England alone and, though I do not know in how many months it will be, at some point soon the Home Office will be forced to change this ridiculous policy. I hope the House will help the Home Office do that.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, during the protracted passage of the Agriculture Bill, I spoke about the links between it and the trade, environment and immigration Bills. These all have inextricable links and clauses in each affect the others. I will speak solely to the issue of migrant workers.
The agriculture business relies very heavily on migrant workers. The farm close to me is award-winning, milks huge herds three times a day and is totally reliant on migrant workers. In Cornwall and other arable counties, crops are sown, tended, matured and picked when they are ready to be harvested. This work is done almost exclusively by migrant workers.
At the start of the lockdown, television adverts appealed for those laid off to go and pick crops. The initial response was good, but the work was back-breaking, the hours long, the pay minimal and the accommodation inferior to what was expected. After three weeks, the British workforce melted away. No matter how hard the Government try to sell this as a means of making a living, most of our population is no longer willing to do this work.
The horticulture and agriculture sectors are heavily dependent on migrant workers. It is estimated that over the course of a year, 17,000 migrant workers will be required to fulfil the needs of ensuring that the crops grown are picked and make their way to the farm shops, supermarkets and farmers’ markets, and from there on to our tables.
I have read the points-based system document. The people picking crops are not going to earn anything like the salary threshold proposed. A good grasp of English is not necessary to cut flowers or cabbages; they are not skilled workers as the Government define “skill”. They are never going to accumulate the necessary 70 points, despite falling into the category of a specific shortage occupation.
The Government require businesses to adapt to manage without lower-skilled migrant workers. The development of robotics can help with both the tending and the harvesting of some crops. However, this requires heavy capital investment. While I support the extension of robotics into cropping in agriculture, some crops are not suitable for such methods—strawberries spring to mind.
During the Covid-19 crisis, we have seen in sharp focus how important it is to have a ready supply of healthy, locally grown food. I urge the Government to think again on this Bill and ensure that the workers our land needs are there to assist those running farming and horticulture businesses, so that their crops and produce do not go to waste and rot in the fields.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. This Bill, with its overhaul of the immigration system, presents a major opportunity to address issues of modern slavery and prevent the abuse and exploitation of migrant workers. It could be a crucial tool in the fight against modern slavery. Modern slavery is a hidden crime, and I hope that our borders will be more resilient to infiltration by the evil traders in human beings. I would like to ask the Minister what improvements the Bill provides to ensure that those slavers are denied entry to the UK.
There are some other measures I would like the Minister to consider. Will she look at introducing measures into the Bill to provide safe routes and safe working environments for low-paid workers? We should recognise the importance of labour market enforcement and protection for workers as part of any new such policy. As the Bill stands, I believe it lacks safeguards that would ensure migrant workers are able to come to the UK safely and with appropriate protection from vulnerability. We must create a system that does not encourage or exacerbate modern slavery risks.
We could embed labour protections into the design of any new temporary migration programme proposed, by making specific requirements of employers who wish to hire migrant workers on any temporary migration programme. Perhaps the Government could also include the provision of a safe route for regular labour migration, with decent rights and protections to reduce the risk of increasing the size of the UK’s undocumented workforce. I am sure there will be a high demand for workers in some sectors, which could combine to lead to a rise in undocumented workers and therefore the spread of exploitation. I hope the Government will commit to providing pre-departure and on-arrival information about working conditions and rights for all migrant workers to help identify and seek remedy for cases of abuse.
With our borders better controlled post Brexit, I hope, why not repeal the illegal working offence—a tool used by traffickers to threaten victims—at the very least for employees, if not employers, to enable them to co-operate with labour inspection and report labour abuses? This would also prevent the targeted recruitment of irregular migrants for exploitative purposes and ensure that employers perpetrating abusive or exploitative behaviours can be brought to justice.
I would like the Bill to be amended to establish a new safeguard to ensure that no personal information about workers that is processed or held by a labour inspectorate or the police is passed to the Home Office for the purposes of immigration enforcement. I believe that such mechanisms already exist in the Netherlands, the USA, Brazil and other jurisdictions. This would ensure that our future migration system does not undermine decent work conservation and anti-slavery objectives.
I suggest that we repeal Section 24B of the Immigration Act, which criminalises the act of working without required documentation in the UK, as it is proven to increase the risk of exploitation. Let us not waste this golden opportunity to further our fight against this appalling crime.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, many laws come before the House of Lords that I disagree with but few deserve the label “tragedy”—but the Bill now before us does. In introducing the Bill, the Minister set it out plainly:
“The heart of the Bill is that it ends free movement.”
She said it. The Bill deliberately and bluntly ends something deeply precious that had been available to hundreds of millions of people for decades—a freedom and an opportunity for a wider life. It is a tragedy that we are today, in a stroke, preparing to reduce the freedoms and opportunities of 450 million European citizens and the chances for them to come to the UK and contribute their skills, knowledge and energy to our life.
I will focus on the far greater reverse loss for 66 million Britons, and particularly our young people. Denying free movement from the EU to the UK also means the reverse. We lose freedom of movement in the EU in more than a score of countries spread across a good part of a continent.
Lots of this debate has focused on economics, as far too much of our debate assumes that people exist to serve the economy and not the reverse, but I will focus on people’s lives, hopes, loves and, yes, even whims; the chance to up sticks and move, to stop in your travels, to experiment and to change—an opportunity that this Bill wipes out for Britons.
Movement is integral to the nature of our species—indeed, the nature of our genus, when you look at how far even our ancestor Homo erectus spread around this planet. With this Bill we are choosing to deny it to ourselves. It is traditional in your Lordships’ House to declare interests, although I know that as soon as I open my mouth it is evident that I grew up in one place, which I did not much like, and decided to see what was on the other side of the world, being lucky enough to have that opportunity open to me.
Huge numbers of people in the world move not by choice but by force of war and civil conflict, climate emergency and nature crisis. We should be working towards a world where no one has to move, but we should want a world in which everyone can move and make choices. That option is always available to the rich; there are always ways. Losing freedom of movement is profoundly an issue of inequality. It is those without the cash, connections and languages who will be stuck while the few wander the globe at will.
Many noble Lords have outlined how we might make this Bill slightly less disastrous, prevent children being torn away from their parents and couples from each other, protect child refugees and stop Henry VIII powers, and in Committee I will join in that work. Today I ask your Lordships to consider taking a bold, brave step, stop a tragedy and stand up for a deeply precious right: freedom of movement.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will concentrate on an amendment which I hope will be tabled in this House, even though it was defeated in the other place, proposing new Clause 7. This would limit the time that may be spent in immigration detention to 28 days. It was moved by David Davis, shadow Home Secretary when the noble Lord, Lord Reid, then Home Secretary, famously said that his border force was not fit for purpose.
Last week, a number of us attended a briefing by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who exposed a situation that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, would find depressingly familiar. It is no use saying that under Brexit we have regained control of our borders when our fragile immigration system is in such dire need of direction and organisation. The situation in detention is reportedly even worse than it was when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons and responsible for inspecting it. All the important case work on which everything depends is chaotic. The “hostile environment” should never have been created and the culture of disbelief in the Home Office can be eliminated only by firm and consistent leadership.
As allegedly a civilised nation, we should be ashamed that what purports to be our immigration system is regarded as the most draconian in Europe. In 2019, it was found that a person had been detained for 1,002 days, and the cash-strapped Home Office can ill afford the £21 million that it had to pay out in compensation to 850 people—a shameful number—whom it had wrongfully detained. The Home Affairs Committee in the other place and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have both recommended that no immigrant should spend more than 28 days in detention, with judicial oversight after 96 hours. I shall be tabling an amendment to end the use of segregation during detention, unique in Europe. People describe the locking up of prisoners who have broken the law for 23 hours a day as inhuman treatment. How much worse is the use of similar treatment on innocent immigrants?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, when the electorate across the United Kingdom were given the democratic opportunity to choose whether to stay within the European Union or leave, they decided to leave. There were a number of contributing factors that energised the electorate to come out in their millions to cast their vote, and one was immigration. As one who voted leave, I support the general principle undergirding this Bill.
In the other place, the Home Secretary stated that she was endeavouring to end EU freedom of movement, get ready for a new global immigration system and help restore public confidence in the integrity of our borders. She contended that her aim was to have a fairer, firmer and simpler system that would attract the people we need to drive our country forward, attract the very best talent from around the globe, tighten security and keep criminals out, et cetera. These are laudable objectives, but how to achieve them will no doubt command varying opinions.
In recent years the United Kingdom has struggled with uncontrolled and undemocratic mass immigration that has caused unrest within our society. In my humble opinion, the previous system was untenable and caused increasing pressure on schools, health and hospital services that had to be rectified. We must pay tribute to those from across the world who have worked tirelessly in our health and social care sector, providing an excellent level of service to the community during the most difficult of times. The Government must ensure that these workers do not fall foul of any skills and income-threshold rule that would leave our elderly vulnerable.
Will this legislation exclude some health and care workers from entering the United Kingdom, primarily social care staff? What are the implications for the staffing of health and social care services, quality of care and patient safety in the foreseeable future? I appreciate that we must have an immigration system that is efficient, transparent and able to act against those who frequently break our rules, abuse our health and social services systems and commit serious crime, but we need to permit adequate personnel to come to the United Kingdom, not only to protect the healthcare needs of our community but to have a system that fully meets the needs of our businesses and our economy. During the Covid crisis we owe a great debt of gratitude to agricultural workers and food production workers, who were not only key to the survival of our local economy in Northern Ireland but essential to keeping fresh fruit on our table.
The United Kingdom must be open to receiving the brightest and best talents, wherever they are from, including those with the skills necessary to keep the wheels of industry moving, protect our hospitality sector and, I hope, rebuild our manufacturing base. I must stress that while I welcome the principle of ending uncontrolled immigration, it must be done in a manner that preserves the best of British decency and compassion. We must therefore have an open approach to refugees from communities affected by terrorism, war or persecution.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will leave to others the substantive policy consequences of the choices in the Bill and will leave aside my own views on the wisdom of the Brexit that prompted it—that is now a done deal. My points are focused on the ways in which the Bill will generate bad law, which is damaging in itself and as a precedent. I want briefly to mention two aspects of the Bill that seriously concern not just me but many legal experts.
First, picking up on the comments from many colleagues, especially those of my noble friend Lord Rosser, I will mention the provisions for delegated powers in Clause 4. The scope of secondary legislative power given to Ministers is absolutely astonishing. Clause 4(1) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make by statutory instrument such regulations as she
“considers appropriate in consequence of, or”—
in the famous phrase—
“in connection with, any provision of”
the part of the Bill concerned with ending free movement. This power may, among many other things, modify
“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act.
Noble colleagues have heard how the House’s Delegated Powers Committee has made its views on this aspect of the Bill crystal clear. It was disturbed by the phrase “in connection with” Part 1 because, as it said:
“This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”.
In short, this enables a Minister to decide whatever they want, as long as they can draw some vague connection.
This extraordinary problem is compounded further by a conspicuous lack of clarity in Clause 1 about which aspects of free movement law actually remain in place. With an extraordinary wide discretion to do something very vague, all this adds up to bad law, trouble down the line and a terrible precedent. This is no way to make immigration law, nor law in general. At the very least, Clause 4 delegation powers should be subject to a sunset clause for six months. Will the Minister consider that?
The second issue is the power to charge fees. Clause 4 provides that this charging power extends to making regulations in relation to
“fees or charges … made by or under”
any prior primary legislation. But there is no need for this power to amend fees or charges provisions, as statutory powers to make an order for an immigration health surcharge and related charges are found variously in Sections 38, 64 and 74 of the Immigration Act 2014. The provision should therefore just be removed.
Whether or not we support the removal of free movement, it is what was voted for and the Government are entitled to legislate for it. But that is no excuse for law that is open-ended, vague and inconsistent. Flexibility for Ministers is one thing, but sidestepping issues that should be the domain of primary legislation is quite another.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is much to say and to agree to, but today I will confine myself to four points. First, I very much hope that with the help of this Bill, government policy on immigration will in future pay better attention to the serious public concern around this subject, as displayed in the Brexit referendum. The fact is that all the polling found that the desire for an independent immigration policy was among the biggest motivators for leaving the EU. Such concerns are held especially strongly among the have-nots in society; they have held government policy on immigration to be far too lax for many decades. The haves, particularly the liberal professional classes, have not in general reacted sympathetically to these concerns. Rather, they have too often responded with smug references to their own virtue. But of course the downsides of immigration—the effects on public services and wages, and the creation of depressed areas—are borne disproportionately by the less fortunate in society.
My second point is that the scale of immigration must be reflected in planning within the public sector, a point made clear by my noble friend Lord Hodgson in his startling figures, which are on top of the 3.7 million EU citizens who have applied for the EU SS scheme. Given the number of people who are arriving on our small islands, this needs to be reflected in schools, hospitals, doctors and transport infrastructure, as well as in housing, as was rightly emphasised by my noble friend Lord Lilley. The Blair Government failed in this elementary task and we do not want that failure to be repeated. It is chilling that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, has warned in such stark terms about the risk of much larger numbers if the operation of the rules is left with employers. We need a proper answer to this.
Thirdly, it is exasperating to see how often Government policies on immigration, supported by large majorities at the ballot box, are upset by decisions of the judiciary, allegedly on the grounds of human rights. The case of the young lady who travelled to Syria of her own volition is the most recent egregious example. Can the Government draft legislation in order to avoid this risk?
Fourthly and finally, noble Lords will know that I am always concerned about the practical side of laws. The only means of enforcing immigration law aside from tightening border controls is deporting those without a right to remain in the country, yet the Government’s ability to do this is embarrassingly weak. One reason for this is the complexity, expense and riskiness of arranging charter flights. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that to improve enforcement, the Government should purchase or convert some planes for this express purpose?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, on 15 July, the Minister told me that the Home Office is unable to state how many applications from asylum seekers for refugee status are currently being assessed or how long it takes on average to resolve each application. Data collection and the adequate staffing of care homes have both been mentioned during this debate by other noble Lords. Those are questions to which, along with others, I hope to return at later stages. At this point, I want briefly to ask about trafficking, exploitation, family visas, child refugees and indefinite detention.
I am a trustee of the Arise Foundation, which combats human trafficking and modern slavery. Alongside the new points-based system, the Government are considering an extension of their pilot scheme for strict six-month visas for seasonal agricultural workers. The system gives people limited opportunities to change their employer or to challenge abusive practices, and it is therefore essential to ensure that proper safeguards against exploitation are in place.
More widely, we know that traffickers will seek every chance to abuse new immigration policies. We also know that fear of prosecution currently deters many people from escaping abusive employment practices or presenting themselves to the police. Repealing the offence of illegal working so that no victim is at risk of being punished would be an important step towards protecting people from exploitation. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to do that.
Under any new or extended scheme for seasonal agricultural workers, what steps will the Government take to inspect recruiters, working practices and living conditions, as well as ensuring that seasonal agricultural workers are aware of their rights and know how to challenge exploitation?
For those who are here legally but who miss the June 2021 deadline for the settlement scheme, what steps will the Government take to ensure that access to healthcare, housing or employment is not lost? Have they made any assessment of older and more vulnerable people who may not yet have applied to the settlement scheme and therefore will be at risk of losing their rights?
The UK remains the only European country without a time limit on detention. Last year, the longest detention stood at a shocking 1,002 days. Covid-19 has led to speedier and more humane decisions. Will the Government build on that and end indefinite immigration detention by replacing it with a 28-day time limit and robust judicial oversight, and amend the Bill to introduce a time limit on such detention? Simultaneously, it would be humane to examine the family visa system to prevent prolonged separations that are detrimental to family life, and to help families to stay together by reforming the minimum income threshold for family visas.
Can the Minister say what steps will be taken under the new rules to ensure that child refugees have access to family reunion with relatives in the UK? More than 1,600 unaccompanied refugee children are stranded on islands in the Aegean. Surely in the context of this Bill, we can do more to help people like them.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I find a certain paradox about what we are considering. We are favouring a policy that encourages those who are most needed for the development of their own society—highly qualified people who are desperately needed in their own parts of the world. We are encouraging them to come here, favouring them as compared with those who do not have prospects of a good future but have proved that they have become valiant parts of our public services and health service.
I want to put on record, however, my appreciation for the progress that has been made in rooting out the hostile environment. This was a disgraceful period in our history and totally contrary to everything we claim as our values. It was particularly damaging to those who had been through sad, traumatic experiences—sometimes hell, with torture. It required political leadership, and I think we should pay our respects to those who have been prepared to provide that political leadership, as compared with others who like to flirt with popularism. There is a difference between firmness and insensitive, harsh policies. We may need firmness, but we must always remember that people are people, and they must always, all the time, whatever the frustrations, be treated with respect and dignity.
We need to safeguard the position of European Union and EEA citizens, and we need to re-examine the right to work, which seems to me a logical development. We must look at the implications of the legislation for trafficking, and we need to be sure that there is real access to legal aid for those who most need it. We really must look at ending, or moving towards ending, detention; we certainly should be imposing a 28-day limit. We need vigilance about all the powers that are being delegated to the Secretary of State.
My final point is this: we all constantly emphasise the importance of family in terms of social stability and the well-being of society, so why is it that, in our immigration policy, we discourage family? We need to look at children and parents and at the part to be played very often by siblings. There is a lot to be examined and scrutinised in the legislation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot disguise my despair when I watch the ineptitude of this Government: their handling of the pandemic and the abysmal complacency and incompetence that we saw there; their blind pursuit of a hard Brexit, even though we are facing a serious economic recession and imagined contracts may be in short supply; the arrogant abuse of power, of which the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are but a searing example; the ugly rewarding of contracts to friends; the never resigning despite bad behaviour; their sweeping under the carpet of inconvenient truths, like the interference by Russia in the referendum; and other aspects of our polity being interfered with too.
This Bill, I am afraid, fits into that list of inadequate governance. It boasts that it is a short, simple Bill. Well, that is one of its failures, because in being so short it fails children, it fails trafficked people—men, women and children—and it fails migrant workers and asylum seekers. There is no mention of their need to be able to work to survive and no mention of detention without limit, referred to by the last two speakers. It fails families, particularly European families who are of mixed European heritage—they might have a parent who is British and a parent who is German or Italian—and the implications of that in keeping families together. It fails students and universities; it fails our elderly, who will be deprived of social care; it fails our farmers and our agri-food businesses: the list is endless.
I want to ask the Minister—I make no criticism of her, because I hold her in high regard—what are we going to do about EEA nationals, so that they are able to prove that they are in the UK lawfully? We were told that the statutory instruments that are promised should be published alongside this Bill, but will they be? Why cannot there be physical proof of settled status? We know that one of the great threats to our security comes from cyberattacks, so we all understand why people want to have a piece of plastic, like the membership card that we all have for museums, to prove their status in this country.
I also want to raise the position of people who settled in other parts of Europe when we were part of the EU, who married and have children but who may want to resettle back here. Will their partners be included in this points system? Will they face insurmountable financial criteria when wanting to come back here if their partner is a German, an Italian, or whoever? Will the Government honour the rights those people thought they had? What will happen about health coverage?
Finally, I want to raise the issues that have also been raised about indefinite detention—we really have to stop that, because it is so cruel and inhumane—and about our deportation regime. We are sending people back to countries they left when they were three or five years of age. There is something inhumane in doing that. There are many questions I seek answers to, but I am afraid that the Bill is a searing indictment of an opportunity that could have been quite different.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for her remarks, particularly in relation to those UK citizens living on the continent. The UK has embarked on a journey and, given the course the country is taking, I see a degree of fait accompli. A caveat would be to allow for flexibility should the need arise.
I had expected to deliver a diatribe this afternoon addressing the uncompassionate manner in which the immigration authorities deliver their services. However, I have taken note that the Secretary of State has underlined the desire to ensure that compassion will become the mantra. I am taking her at her word. This would be highly welcome, but she needs to be kept to account. We need to be able to say to the world—I borrow the Minister’s words, although said in a different context—“This country needs the reputation of being firm, fair and fit as a nation.”
Taking those words in context, we all know of horror stories, and I have first-hand experience whereby a family member undeniably fits those criteria. She was scholarship material at university and is considered to be world-class in her field, yet she was turned down for entry to the UK for a summer vacation to stay with my sister and son—no right of appeal, no nothing. An incorrect assumption was made by an official. I know because I filled in her form and, of course, I know the person concerned. We were eventually informed that her biometrics should be done, and a round-trip drive of 700 kilometres was undertaken, but then, quite extraordinarily, her application was rejected. The system assessed this totally incorrectly. If I were not a Member of your Lordships’ House, I would have made more of a song and dance of it. The report card for the Home Office on that occasion was a resounding F for fail, with a possible flaw in farmed-out services—in this case, a team that had been parachuted in from eastern Europe.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. I support the Bill, but I have a number of concerns I wish to raise with regard to migrant labour involved in the agricultural, horticultural and fishing industries, together with the food processing industry.
All these industries rely heavily on migrant labour. We have seen the reported problems caused by the lack of immigrant labour for fruit and vegetable harvesting over the past couple of months, caused by the lack of movement due to coronavirus. These problems have been severe, and recruitment of labour from home-grown resources has not been a resounding success. The work is tough, often in inclement weather conditions, and not everybody is suited to it.
Under the Government’s new immigration policy, there will be a rigid set of criteria which must be fulfilled prior to the application for a visa. EU and non-EU citizens will need 70 points to enable their application to go ahead, including: first, to have a job offer from an approved sponsor; secondly, to have a job offer which is at a required skilled level; and, thirdly, to be able to speak English to a certain level. I have absolutely no problem with any of those requirements. However, those workers are low paid, which is one of the reasons why we in this country cannot gear up enthusiasm for these jobs, and why we rely heavily on migrant labour.
Many migrant workers will also upskill while they are working here, and that needs to be taken into account. While great strides are being made to automate a wide range of jobs in these industries, there are still very many requirements which simply cannot be carried out by machine. Therefore, I believe that the Government must keep a watchful eye on the migrant labour situation as it unfolds, as the industries which I mentioned earlier might well be disadvantaged, and that would have a considerable effect on the consumer and on food supply.
Finally, I very much welcome the Government’s plan to exclude Irish citizens from migrant restrictions. The Irish are great friends of ours, and they are a major force in the horseracing industry throughout the UK. To restrict their movement would cause serious problems for that industry.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, many of your Lordships have made very valuable points, including the noble Earl who just spoke, so I shall keep my comments short.
I agree that there should be an independent review of the Bill’s impact on the health and social care workforce and the adequacy of public funding for those sectors. The Bill will see an end to free movement, but I am afraid that that is an inevitable consequence of both the Brexit referendum and the incompetence of the EU in the run-up to the referendum, which showed virtually no flexibility on this vital matter. The vote reflected the fact that the British public’s concerns about immigration were ignored by the EU and mishandled by David Cameron, who woke up to the danger of his reckless and opportunistic referendum gamble too late.
Her Majesty’s Government will introduce a points-based immigration system from 2021, as we have heard, but will not introduce a general low-skilled or temporary work route. The fact is that 180,000 EU nationals work in the NHS and care sector, but 69% of EU migrants would not be eligible for a visa if the Government’s immigration system applied to them. I welcome the fact that the Government will introduce a new health and social care visa and fast-track entry, but can the Minister explain further how this would work in practice?
Once the UK starts doing international trade deals, a number of countries will demand visa-free entry to the country as part of the package—India is one example of a country that has asked for that. Can the Minister explain how this fits in with the points-based immigration system?
Finally, will Her Majesty’s Government revisit the idea of ID cards, which are an accepted way of controlling illegal immigration and cracking down on crime elsewhere across the world?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, not only does the Bill do nothing to dismantle the institutional architecture of the hostile/compliant environment, directed by its predecessors, but it extends it to thousands of EU citizens, and with it, vulnerability to detention. So I, like others, hope that we will build on the efforts of Conservative MPs to introduce a time limit. Following the Home Secretary’s very welcome announcement that she has accepted Wendy Williams’ recommendations of a full review of the confined environment, can the Minister assure us that the review has the power to question its basic tenets and institutions?
Also at risk are thousands of children of EU and EEA nationals, particularly looked-after children and care leavers. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that these children receive permanent immigration status before June 2021? What procedures will there be to protect children’s best interests, including by ensuring that their right to British citizenship is not impeded by lack of information or the exorbitant £1,000-plus fee? Will the Minister also undertake to review the no recourse to public funds rule, recently ruled to be in breach of children’s human rights, as many more could now be affected by it? Could she give a categorical assurance that there will be no diminution in the rights of unaccompanied refugee and asylum-seeking children?
The Bill does nothing to address the existing immigration system’s many flaws, including those affecting asylum seekers. Yet it gives the Government carte blanche, particularly on social security with, as already noted, a clause described by the Delegated Powers Committee as “even thinner than skeletal”, raising serious questions on social security posed by some noble Lords that I hope will be answered.
What we do know is that a points-based system will be introduced through Immigration Rules which Parliament cannot amend. Far from being fair, as noted by other noble Lords, it confuses pay with skill and contribution, to the detriment of those recognised and applauded as key workers during the pandemic but now cast aside as lacking necessary skills. The Home Secretary herself conceded in February that caring is not a “low-skilled occupation”. Why is it being treated as one now?
Overall, the equality impact assessment acknowledges the adverse impact of a pay-based points system on women—as has the Minister. The Cavendish Coalition of 37 health and care organisations has warned the Prime Minister that we are heading swiftly towards an alarming destination with no obvious solution for the care sector and that it would be unwise to believe that domestic recruitment will solve all social care’s immediate problems. With adequate funding, domestic recruitment may well offer a long-term solution, but it is irresponsible to pretend it can do so from next year.
I plead with the Government to think again and, as other noble Lords have pressed, at the very least provide for a transition period during which the promised, much-delayed new care strategy can make provision for rewarding carers adequately in recognition of their essential contribution during the pandemic, which the Minister herself lauded.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I first thank the Government Whips for facilitating my substitution for my noble friend Lady Ludford, who is regrettably ill today. I send her my best wishes. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, she will participate during scrutiny of this Bill.
We have heard reference to “take back control” today, but I do not think the Minister had in mind the image presented by the noble Lord, Lord Green, of an uncontrolled car doomed to crash. If we are taking back control, as she has said, some Members have not given it the warmest of welcomes. But the fact that the Liberal Democrat Benches are among those who have not given it a warm welcome is a lower-order issue. What is most unwelcome is that millions of EU citizens continue to endure great uncertainty, bureaucracy and cost. This is scant reward for the great contribution to our country that these people have made—to our economy, our health and care systems, our culture, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones indicated, and our urban and rural economy alike, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell indicated.
The Minister referred to this Bill as simple. However, a great number of uncertainties arise from it, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who gave a characteristically forensic but humane response to the Minister’s speech. Some of those uncertainties have been outlined clearly in this debate, such as the very appropriate questions from my noble friend Lord Greaves on the legal position across Great Britain if a legislative consent Motion from Scotland is not forthcoming. Will a system come into place, as promised in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, of a
“fully digital end to end customer journey, requiring everyone … to seek permission in advance of travel”?
Or, as the Minister and the White Paper have been silent on numbers, if the Government disagree with the prognosis of the noble Lord, Lord Green and, as page 20 of the 2019 Conservative manifesto said,
“overall numbers will come down”,
to what level and over what timeframe? How will we know if this is a success and how will we be able to hold the Government to account for it?
What will be the limits on the order-making powers in Clauses 4 and 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, asked? The Minister referred to possible reciprocity with regard to UK citizens across the European Union— I stress “possible”. If it is possible that agreement will not be reached, there must surely be contingency arrangements. Will the Government publish those now? People need to know whether they will be enjoying the rights of UK citizens six months on.
The Minister also implied that Clause 2, on Irish citizens, is straightforward. As the Bill proceeds, we will scrutinise that further. We know that those who come from Ireland, processing through Northern Ireland from 1 January next year, are a distinct case. The Government say that the UK has left the single market, but while Great Britain has, the UK in its entirety has not—one whole nation remains. In the words of Boris Johnson to UK citizens there:
“You keep free movement; you keep access to the single market”.
With a common travel area with no immigration processes for people also living under the EU single market, or for those under the free movement of people rule set by the European Union going forward from next January, how will we know when they travel to Great Britain and what will the processes be? It may not be that a border point will be required in my home town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated, but what are the internal United Kingdom immigration processes to be? These are unprecedented and likely to be very unwelcome.
Turning to most of those who move from Northern Ireland to GB, or accompanying goods and for trades and services, this leads on to the issue raised with regard to trade. Another of the Minister’s comments that weakens when there is greater scrutiny was that we will have a single system with no privilege for particular nationalities. However, that is not the case, as the UK trade agreement with the Swiss Confederation illustrates. We know that Australia and New Zealand have asked for differential visa arrangements and that this is also part of the discussions with the European Union. The Government themselves have asked for preferential treatment for those working in banking and the City of London. Perhaps that is what the difference is when my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked who the best are. If they have money, we will want them, but if they have not, they will have to struggle.
Finally, “the brightest and best” will, I think, gradually be seen, along with “global Britain” as a toom tabard, as we in Scotland would say—an empty coat. The time for sloganising has gone; the campaigns for referenda or elections are finished. We now face the hard task of legislating and we need to make the Bill better. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated, it needs to be a more humane piece of legislation. Through those amendments that will be pioneered by my noble friend Lady Barker and others, we will give the Bill scrutiny. It is unwelcome, but we will try to make it better for all those people who are currently going to endure it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I start, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, by paying tribute to all the immigrants who have come to our country and worked in essential services and elsewhere. They have made a great contribution to the United Kingdom. They have made it richer, better, more diverse and a better place to live. Bills such as this are scant reward for that.
This has been an interesting debate, to say the least. It continues the path the Government have taken of inflicting harm on our country based on obsessive dogma rather than what is right. Dogma is the problem here. That is a tragedy and, working with colleagues across the House, I will work to improve the Bill and send it back to the other place in a better state than it arrived in here.
As we have heard, the Bill repeals retained EU law on free movement and brings nations which benefited from that status into a single immigration system. I suppose bringing things together in one system is probably the best thing you can do, but it is the Government’s attitude, and of the Home Office in particular, that concerns me when it comes to these matters. We have often heard the Government say that they have learned lessons and apologise for the latest scandal, but when you see a Bill such as this, you begin to ask yourself whether the lessons have really been learned.
We are in the middle of the biggest health emergency in our lifetime. We have clapped health workers, care workers and others who have kept the country going, including those who have picked our fruit and vegetables in the hot sun and worked in food processing and other essential jobs. Many are just the sort of people who in future will be materially affected by the proposals in the Bill. In turn, that puts our citizens at risk. The Bill creates a system which falls way short of meeting our needs in such sectors as health, social care, hospitality and food production. It imposes bureaucratic and financial barriers to recruiting skilled healthcare workers from the EEA. If they get past all the red tape, their rights and entitlements are diminished and, for the carers and other essential workers we have relied on during the pandemic, who have also put their lives on the line, there is no route to work in London or elsewhere because they will not meet the minimum income requirement.
The saying “shooting yourself in the foot” comes to mind. We need to look carefully at the powers of the Secretary of State to make immigration policy by way of the Immigration Rules. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made an excellent speech. We have a serious problem which the Government must address. We must improve the position of workers coming from abroad to work in the health and social care sectors—they are vital to the proper functioning of our society and to ensure that people are looked after properly in old age and when they are ill—along with an affordable, simple, effective and clear route to residency and citizenship if they want to take that.
The Minister referred to the long-term plan for social care in her opening remarks. I was not aware that we had a long-term plan for social care. Perhaps she will outline it in her response to the House.
The other line I got from the Minister—and heard from many noble Lords today—was that the system has allowed wages in the care sector to be kept low, and that this new system will allow us to ensure that wages can increase. Of course, that is good to hear, but it is an interesting line from the Government. I have not heard it many times from the Benches opposite in the 10 years I have been in this House. It will be interesting to see campaigns from those Benches to ensure that wages for healthcare workers are increased, because we need to deal with the scandal of poverty pay. I cannot recall such a campaign, but I have contacts at the GMB, UNISON and the TUC. If any noble Lords opposite need them, I am sure we can get a campaign going for the Government to call on employers to ensure that they pay their workers better. But, of course, the Government have not used the powers they have now to do that. They have the powers to increase wages and so on, and they have chosen not to do so or to deal with these issues.
Many noble Lords have referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. It raised concerns about the previous version of the Bill, as did many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is important that we deal with this issue. I kept hearing “take back control”, but it never seemed to me to mean what we have now. It seems a very funny “take back control” where you do not like scrutiny by Parliament, engagement or challenge. That is what Parliament is here for. It is strange that the Executive seem to be shying away from those things. We need to remember that because what we have now is bad government. It is not good government; it does not get the balance right. This is a Government who do not like scrutiny, challenge or being accountable. They are a Government who will reap what they have sown. Their intolerance of scrutiny will leave us with all sorts of traps, which the Government will be dragged into. We shall sit here year after year, after all sorts of changes and moves backwards and forwards, because they would not listen and take part in that scrutiny. They will find difficulties in years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made some excellent points about the importance of proper, accurate data to make the decisions you need to make. I hope he gets a detailed response from the Minister on that.
A number of noble Lords referred to skills and the need to upskill our workforce. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. In his previous roles as leader of a major local authority, Education Secretary and Home Secretary, he has an impressive track record of improving the life chances of citizens, reducing class sizes, improving schools’ infrastructure, increasing literacy and numeracy and keeping us safe. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and thought he raised a number of important questions that need careful answering.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock raised concerns about the parts of the Bill that deal with social security entitlements. Can the Minister confirm how we will ensure that eligible residents take advantage of the settled status scheme? I have raised this before. The real risk, of course, is that people do not realise they need to take advantage of this scheme and potentially end up in our country illegally. That cannot be right.
As entitlements to benefits, healthcare and other services are denied or deferred here in the UK, how will that affect British citizens living in the European Union? A number of noble Lords made the point that they are our citizens living abroad and we need to ensure we protect them. If the EU sees its citizens having their rights denied or taken away here, there is a risk of changes to the rights of our citizens living abroad in Europe.
I support the calls of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, to support the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. It is a very good Bill, and I have supported him many times in the past. It would be good to bring the protection afforded to victims of modern slavery in England and Wales up to the same standards we have in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to address the issue of victims of modern slavery and why the Government are just not engaging with it. The loss of important EU protections is a risk to victims of modern slavery, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol said.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley asked a number of questions about the status of child EU citizens in care in the UK. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that these children’s immigration status is resolved properly and that the path to residency and citizenship is mapped out for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asked me about our attitude to voting on Bills in this House. I am always happy to divide the House and defeat the Government on issues where I think they have not listened or are wrong and need to be given the opportunity to reconsider in the other place and come back. I think I have a reasonably good record of defeating the Government, but I am also happy to engage with them, work constructively and seek to persuade them of the need for change. I hope the Government would confirm that I am always constructive, as I am with all members of the governing party.
On the Business and Planning Bill I made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that I was prepared to divide the House if necessary. I was successful in winning a number of concessions, such as the 11 pm cut-off for off-sales, protections for pavement users and issues on which we felt the Government had unintentionally forgotten bodies such as the mayoral development corporations and TfL—for example, not allowing them to meet virtually. We raised those issues and the Government agreed. When considering the Business and Planning Bill or any other Bill, I have to weigh up what is right and get the right balance between further demands, important issues to be raised, engagement and when it is right to vote or accept the concession. Sometimes you can get that wrong, but I think I got it right this week. I am always happy to engage with noble Lords on that basis.
Moving on to other areas of the Bill, I warmly welcome the part that protects the rights of Irish citizens. There are historic links between Britain and Ireland, and that is to be welcomed. My parents came from the Republic of Ireland to work in London and then, some years ago, they retired back to the Republic. Like many others, I have a great love of both the UK and Ireland. We have many shared values and a shared history. My mum came to this country to work as a nurse in the NHS. Many years later she ended up working in the Members’ Tea Room in the House of Commons, and there will be many Members here who knew her when they were in the other place. The links between our two countries are to be treasured.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of immigration detention. We have heard some horrific stories of people being treated unfairly and unjustly, and that does nothing but bring shame to our country— we have to do better than that. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Alton of Liverpool, and others raised concerns about this issue, and I agree with them.
In conclusion, this is a dreadful Bill and I hope that we will have made it a little better when we send it back to the other place. I will very happily join other noble Lords in dividing the House if necessary. I believe that the Government will reap what they sow with this Bill. I predict that over the next few years there will be many retreats, U-turns and changes, with the Government saying, “We didn’t really mean that”. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response to the debate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for all their contributions over the course of four or five hours, and I am sure that they will understand that I will not be able to answer every single question. We have covered a wide range of issues, and the fact that there has been either support for the Bill or comments such as “tragedy” and “squalid” shows that there is a wide range of views in this House. That demonstrates to me the importance attached to many immigration issues, and rightly so. I guess that there is a further irony, in that a first-generation Irish immigrant Front-Bencher is winding up the debate with a second-generation Irish immigrant; such is the importance that we attach to Irish immigrants.
My noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley reflected on the trends of the last couple of decades—which are very important in the context of immigration —and the consequences that immigration has had for those trends, whether they be in housing or infrastructure or indeed in attitudes among society. I was most intrigued that both the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Green of Deddington, who are probably on quite different parts of the spectrum on a number of matters, put down the marker of the importance of getting this system right—or else. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, outlined—quite openly, I thought—the problems and consequences of immigration in the early 2000s.
Many noble Lords expressed concern about the detailed policies proposed under the points-based immigration system and the immigration delegated power set out in the Bill. It is important to note at this point that the Bill is narrow. It is focused on ending the EU’s rule on freedom of movement now that we have left the EU. It is a short, technical Bill that does just that and it does not deal with wider immigration issues.
I must also make it clear that the delegated power in the Bill will not be used to make wide-ranging policy reforms; it will merely switch off the free movement rights that EU citizens currently enjoy so that we can align the immigration treatment for EU and non-EU citizens. The Immigration Rules will continue to be used to set out the detailed requirements that a person must meet in order to live, work and study in the UK under the new points-based immigration system.
The Immigration Rules are well established and their use is based on the powers in the Immigration Act 1971. That process is therefore nearly 50 years old, so it is not a novel concept in this Bill. The Immigration Rules are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and enable flexibility, so that policies can be adapted to respond to changing circumstances—for example, as we have done during the coronavirus pandemic.
The Bill does not legislate on the details of the points-based system, nor does it legislate on detention, asylum or compliant environment policies. These are important matters and I know that we will discuss them in Committee and on Report, whether they are in the Bill or not—I have been in this House long enough to know that. They are not part of the Bill, but I look forward to discussing them.
My final point in my introduction is that it is four years since the British people voted to leave the European Union. We must deliver on the will of the people, much as some people may not like it.
The topic that has probably been discussed most in this Second Reading debate is health and care workers. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked about the long-term social care plan. I am afraid that that is out of my powers. However, I know that down the other end of the Corridor, the various sides of the House are trying to come to some sort of consensus on the way forward. I should say that I got into local government more than 20 years ago, and it was a conundrum then and remains so to this day. All parties to the matter, whether from this House or that House, need to find a way forward on this. We should all be incredibly grateful for the work of health and care workers and for the lives that they have saved over the past few months in the fight against coronavirus. They should be valued more than they are.
The Home Secretary has introduced a free one-year automatic visa extension to approximately 3,000 key front-line health workers, including an exemption to the immigration health surcharge. The Home Secretary has also expanded the bereavement scheme to all NHS health and social care workers to include offering indefinite leave to remain for immediate family members and bereaved hospital support workers and social care workers.
On 29 April, we announced that we will extend the visas of NHS front-line workers and their families whose visas expire between 31 March and 1 October. We are working with all NHS trusts and the wider independent health and care sector across the whole of the UK to identify who will benefit. The extension to NHS visas will be automatic. There will be no fee attached and it will be exempt from the immigration health surcharge. We have extended this offer to more key front-line workers, including midwives, social workers and medical radiographers. Social care workers who are employed by NHS trusts, or independent health and care providers, and working in one of the defined occupations, will benefit from the automatic visa extensions offer where visas are due to expire between 31 March and 1 October 2020.
There has been much discussion about the ability of migrant workers to undercut UK workers. Much has been made of the idea that we cannot train people up between now and the end of the year. However, there is a challenge to employers across this country around the easy option of migrant labour, which has undercut our own home-grown workforce for far too long. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was who said that people in this country do not want to work in care, but I do not agree with that. Employers need to support this very worthwhile profession on which so many of us rely, both at the beginning of our lives and towards the end of our lives. That is a challenge for employers in this country.
I come next to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and family reunion. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, challenged me on this, as of course did the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I am sure he will continue to do so. I have said it before and I will say it again: the UK has a long and proud tradition of providing safety to those who claim asylum and it will not be affected by our exit from the EU. We will continue to provide protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations.
I have trotted out the statistics at this Dispatch Box time and again. Under national resettlement schemes we have resettled more people than any other state in the EU—we are incredibly generous to those who need our help. During the transition period, the UK will continue to reunite unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe with family members in the UK under the Dublin regulation. During the coronavirus pandemic, we brought over 52 people from the Greek islands, and I think we might be the only state in the EU that did that. We will continue to process all those transfer requests.
We have now presented a genuine and sincere offer to the EU on a new reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. On 19 May, we published our draft legal text as a constructive contribution to negotiations. Additionally, children with immediate family members in the UK will still be able to join them under the refugee family reunion rules and part 8 and appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. These routes are unaffected by our departure from the EU. Finally, noble Lords will have heard the Prime Minister’s pledge to resettle a further 5,000 vulnerable people seeking refuge, from not just Syria but anywhere in the world. That actually goes way beyond the asks that some of the NGOs have made of us. I am proud of the record that we have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, talked about children in care being denied EU settlement scheme status. Across government, we are working to ensure that all eligible children obtain the UK immigration status they are due. The Home Office has already spent £9 million funding third-party organisations across the country that support families and the hard-to-reach with the apps that they produce. In March, we announced a further £8 million to support this work. It is wrong to say that children will be subject to restrictive measures; they will not. Up to 31 March 2020, there have been almost half a million applications from under-18s. That is a really good figure. There is still plenty of time to apply before the June 2021 deadline.
In that vein, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, asked me about the EU settlement scheme grace period and reasonable grounds. We will publish the guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds for missing the deadline; we intend to do so in early 2021. However, I will give her examples of what might be included. It will include children whose parent, guardian or local authority failed to apply on their behalf; people in abusive or controlling relationships who perhaps could not apply; and those who lack the physical or mental capacity to apply. I think that I might have talked to her about that earlier.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol talked about looked-after children. I think I am repeating myself, because I just mentioned that in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley. We are liaising very closely with local authorities.
The noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, and my noble friend Lord Wei all asked about regional variation. Our new points-based system—I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I think it was, supported this—will work for all parts of the United Kingdom. We will not establish different visa arrangements for different nations or regions of the UK. The MAC has repeatedly said that the economic situations in different parts of the UK are not sufficiently different to warrant different immigration arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to Northern Irish citizens and the Good Friday agreement. A person of Northern Ireland, as defined in the Belfast agreement, has the right to hold British and Irish citizenship, and the right to identify as British, Irish or both, as they may so choose. The Irish rights clause in the Bill is focused on protecting the rights of Irish citizens under existing CTA arrangements. Irish citizens in any part of the UK and British citizens in Ireland enjoy reciprocal rights. Maintaining these rights supports provisions in the Belfast agreement, specifically the right to identify as British, Irish or both.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others asked about fees—I think maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did as well. On the face of it they seem high, particularly when we are talking about children, but application fees for border, immigration and citizenship services play a vital role in our ability to run a sustainable system. The income helps to deliver the funding requirements to run the border, immigration and citizenship service and substantially reduces the burden on UK taxpayers. I am sure that noble Lords and members of the public rightly expect that. Any decisions regarding future fees payable or funding of the system should be taken in the round and outside the passage of this Bill.
Lots of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Dubs and Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others talked about a detention time limit. The main rationale put forward for a time limit is that, in the absence of one, individuals are detained indefinitely. Although I know that noble Lords have cited cases, it is not the case that the law actually permits indefinite detention. A time limit is not only unnecessary; it would severely limit our ability to use detention as an effective means of removal. A time limit would encourage those who seek to frustrate the removal process—and there are those who do—to run down the clock until the limit is reached and release is guaranteed.
Quite a few noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord McColl of Dulwich, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, spoke about modern slavery. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham also spoke to me yesterday about this. Modern slavery and human trafficking have no place in this society, and we are committed to fortifying our immigration system against these crimes while ensuring that victims are protected and offenders prosecuted. Decisions made through the national referral mechanism regarding whether someone is in fact a victim of modern slavery are not affected by their nationality or their immigration status. In fact, I might say that many victims of modern slavery are citizens of the United Kingdom. Support for suspected victims is provided through the NRM regardless of nationality and, although the UK has left the EU, our core international obligations to victims remain unchanged.
I had questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about specific sectors. The noble Lord asked about the creative industries and the noble Baroness asked about modern foreign language teachers. The shortage occupation lists are set on the advice of the independent MAC. It has considered the position of teachers in a specific report in 2017 and in a general view of the shortage occupation lists last year. Teachers of Mandarin are on the shortage occupation list, as I think the noble Baroness might have said, but the MAC did not consider that the case was made for MFL teachers. I can tell her and the noble Lord that the MAC is currently undertaking a further review of the lists and will keep them under regular review so, if they have concerns about this and the sector, I would encourage them to submit evidence to the MAC.
I turn now to another sector, that of ministers of religion, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark asked about. We greatly value the contribution that migrants make to faith communities in this country, and that is why there are two routes for religious workers within the current immigration system which will be continued under the future points-based system. When we made changes in 2019, the then Immigration Minister hosted a round table with representatives of all the major faiths, and just in the past week the current Immigration Minister hosted a further meeting with representatives of the Catholic church.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, on data. This means that I now have a third friend in the House of Lords who is interested in this subject. On a much more serious point, however, the data that we collect on people coming into this country and going out again, along with noting the number who have applied for the EU settlement scheme—a figure that is much higher than we first thought—is absolutely crucial to some of the retrospective and future decisions that we make. We do not agree that Home Office data on immigration is poor. It may be criticised, but we publish some of the most comprehensive immigration statistics of any country and their quality is overseen by the UK Statistics Authority which has been clear that the data is good. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made a point about exit checks. These are crucial to enhancing the robustness of our data and I believe that we have been collecting data on them since 2015.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, and a number of other noble Lords talked about physical proof of status. I smiled a little at that point because, just the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe were absolutely adamant about digital proof of status. We are developing a broader immigration system that, going forward, will be digital by default. As I told the noble Lord on a previous occasion, individuals will receive notification of their immigration status by email or letter. However, the one thing about digital status, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, is that you cannot lose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked about the data for higher education and he noted that the vast majority of students return to their home countries after they have completed their studies. They do that and they are incredibly compliant. He quoted from published Home Office statistics. I agree that it is true for the current crop of students that the current sponsorship is working well. We do not want to return to the pre-sponsorship days, when there were significant concerns about the quality of some of our education establishments, particularly in the FE sector.
I have probably come to the end of my time. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I look forward to considering in Committee some of the issues that I know will be brought forward, whether they are in this Bill or not.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate of course apply.
China
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the UK must offer a firm and resolute response to China’s unwarranted and illegal actions in Hong Kong, and I welcome the two measures contained in the Statement as part of this. The extension of the arms embargo will prevent UK weapons and equipment being used, and I would like to ask whether the Minister will also review the training provided to the Hong Kong police by UK institutions. The immediate and indefinite suspension of the extradition treaty is also welcome, but this must form part of a global response.
On Monday, the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that it needs to be more than just the traditional Five Eyes and Europeans, because there is, as he put it, a whole range of non-aligned countries out there that are very much influenced by what China is doing and saying. So, I ask the Minister: has the meeting with the German Foreign Secretary taken place this week, and has there been a positive response? Also, have there been any multilateral or bilateral talks with the Commonwealth to build support for upholding the international rule of law in all areas, including the South China Sea?
The Foreign Secretary, in response to my honourable friend Lisa Nandy, said in relation to the HSBC Statement:
“The rights and the freedoms of … the people of Hong Kong should not be sacrificed on the altar of bankers’ bonuses.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/20; col. 336.]
Can the Minister explain what the Foreign Secretary meant? The persecution of Uighur Muslims, including their detention in re-education camps and the forced harvesting of their organs, represents one of the gravest oppressions of human rights today. At PMQs today, Boris Johnson said:
“That is why the Foreign Secretary, only this week, condemned the treatment of the Uyghurs. That is why this Government, for the first time, have brought in targeted sanctions against those who abuse human rights in the form of the Magnitsky Act.”
So, does the noble Lord agree with Mr Johnson? Does he accept the urgency of targeting those Chinese officials involved in human rights abuses, including in Hong Kong, or does he follow the Foreign Secretary’s more cautious approach? I was disappointed that yesterday the Minister said that he was not willing to speculate on designations—something Boris Johnson appears happy to do.
I have not asked the Minister to speculate. What I hope for from this Government is a clear commitment to accelerate the timetable for targeted sanctions on Chinese officials involved in the persecution of the Uighur people. If he will not make this commitment tonight, will he at least confirm that the US has provided the evidence upon which they have acted? I would appreciate it if he could, at the very least, confirm the Government’s red lines on what it would take for the application of Magnitsky sanctions in this case.
The Foreign Secretary said that he had given, with Mike Pompeo as well as the other Five Eyes partners,
“due consideration to co-operation on future evidence.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/20; col. 1840.]
Does that mean we have an agreement on the sharing of evidence, and can we move more speedily as a consequence?
In the coming months, the Government must remain alert, monitor China’s action and respond accordingly. While it may be Hong Kong or Xinjiang today, it could be Taiwan tomorrow. The Minister will be aware that Taiwan’s Foreign Minister warned only today that China is imposing itself on Taiwanese airspace and waters. Has the Foreign Office made an assessment of these claims, and were they discussed with Mike Pompeo?
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement on China and Hong Kong to the House. It is surely right to seek a positive relationship with China, with its ancient culture, economic strength and developing excellence in science and technology—especially green technology—as the Statement makes clear.
Nevertheless, we cannot turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, and the Secretary of State is right to identify the appalling treatment of the Uighurs. Can the Minister say whether the Foreign Office has now taken a view on the China Tribunal’s conclusions, and is the FCO bringing China within the scope of the new Magnitsky sanctions?
In terms of Hong Kong, we have a special responsibility. Britain and China signed a treaty, which is lodged at the UN, protecting the rights of those in Hong Kong for at least 50 years. The national security law has blown that away. Like the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I therefore welcome the Government’s actions on citizenship for BNO passport holders, the suspension of the extradition treaty and the extension of the arms embargo. Nevertheless, I once more flag the position of young activists who do not have BNO passports and will be particularly at risk. Will the Government make sure that no one is excluded from this offer? What steps are they taking to ensure that those facing political persecution can freely leave?
The involvement of independent foreign judges in Hong Kong has long been seen as the canary in the coal mine: if they went, the writing would be on the wall for the independence of Hong Kong. The President of the UK Supreme Court has now questioned whether UK judges can continue to sit on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. What is the Minister’s view?
As I asked yesterday, does the Minister believe that there can be free and fair elections to the Legislative Council in September? Will the Government seek to send an election observation mission to Hong Kong? What further actions might the Government take if these elections are not free and fair?
There is also wide concern about free speech. Will British journalists be advised to relocate, and how might access to a free internet be protected? Are the Government willing to work alongside others to create a UN special envoy or rapporteur for Hong Kong, who could have special responsibility for monitoring the human rights situation on the ground? Is there a way this could be done without China simply vetoing it?
As I have expressed before, I remain concerned that not all countries in the EU, a tiny number of Commonwealth countries and no countries in Asia, South America and Africa supported the UK in relation to the new law. This is a desperate situation, and China should recognise the loss to their country of an outflow of talented young people from Hong Kong and step back, even at this late stage, from implementing this new national security law. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their support of the Government’s position. I am sure they both recognise—indeed, they have acknowledged—the fact that, over several months now, the Government have stood up for what they said they would do.
I know, in my own work as Human Rights Minister, that we have not only strengthened but sought to build alliances in the context of the UN Human Rights Council and gained support—including ourselves, there were 27 countries that voted for the statement. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has rightly reminded us again, there were a vast number of countries that were not supportive of the statement initiated by the United Kingdom, and that is a cause for concern.
Therefore, we continue to work through all international fora, as well as bilaterally, to ensure that not only the situation in Hong Kong but that of the Uighur Muslims—which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned specifically—is at the forefront of all our minds. It is particularly noticeable and disappointing that very few countries in the Islamic world have spoken out in defence of the Uighur Muslims. I am not for a moment suggesting that one religion should speak in its own defence, but whoever is persecuted, wherever they are persecuted and irrespective of your faith or belief, you should stand up for their rights, and it is disappointing that we have not seen a response from the wider community. However, we continue to work undeterred.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Commonwealth and will have noted that we have the support of notable partners, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in this respect. We will continue to work with them in further strengthening the response from across the Commonwealth. In the context of the European Union, there was a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, which agreed that national Governments would focus on this issue and announce appropriately.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the visit today of the German Foreign Minister, which is ongoing. I have been on a virtual visit to the UN today, so I have yet to see the updates from those discussions. However, knowing the German Foreign Minister well, I know how much he cares about human rights. Recently, I was with him when he chaired an event at the UN Security Council on the important issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict and standing up for the most vulnerable. We share a value system with many of our EU partners and, more globally, across the Commonwealth—values central to Commonwealth thinking. We will continue to raise these issues bilaterally and in international fora.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the role of various private institutions in Hong Kong, which continue to operate. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been clear that companies must decide in which countries they will operate, but that, while that is a business decision for them, everyone should recognise that the situation prevailing in Hong Kong is a direct contravention of the joint agreement and of “one country, two systems”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, reminded us, this agreement has been lodged with the United Nations. Therefore, we continue to implore China to uphold its obligations as a P5 member of the UN Security Council and as a wider player on important issues currently confronting the world—not only Covid-19 but also, as we work towards COP 26, China’s important role in ensuring that the world faces the challenges of climate change.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the sharing of evidence and work around the Magnitsky sanctions. Again, I would cause speculation if I were to say specifically what the next designations will be, but before the Recess we shall have a debate about the sanctions that have already come forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about red lines. On the issue of the Uighurs and human rights across the world, the intention of the global human rights sanctions regime is to hold those who abuse human rights and commit gross human rights violations to account. However, I cannot speculate on the specifics of China at this juncture.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked a specific question on the sharing of evidence. We work very closely with partners across many areas, including the United States among others. We share a common value system with countries in the European Union, with the United States and with many countries in the Commonwealth and beyond. Many countries look towards us for the initiation of what we have done and invoked through the global human rights sanctions regime. I know that other countries—I know of many in Europe—and the European Union itself are considering a similar specific global human rights sanctions regime.
The noble Baroness also rightly raised the important issue of the judiciary in Hong Kong. As I am sure she recognises and as all noble Lords have followed, what has happened as a material change in the announcement of the national security law is the passing of the appointment of judges from the Chief Justice to the Chief Executive. This is in direct violation of Section 3(3) of the joint declaration. We also saw a statement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, on 17 July. While it remains a question for the judiciary, I am sure that everyone will reflect very carefully on the important role that judges have played in Hong Kong under the existing joint declaration. We continue to implore the Chinese and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to continue to uphold the independence of the judiciary.
The noble Baroness also rightly asked about the pending elections. There is some suggestion and speculation that the Covid crisis might be a factor in consideration of whether these elections are held, but our position remains clear and consistent: we believe that the elections in Hong Kong should be open, fair and transparent. We will continue to raise these issues consistently with the Chinese authorities and the Hong Kong Administration.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the justices of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal—both the permanent and non-permanent justices from Hong Kong itself and the visiting British and Commonwealth justices—have been a bulwark against political interference, and strong guarantors of the rule of law and judicial independence in criminal and civil law cases? Would he not agree that the same could be said of legal practitioners in Hong Kong, who operate under severe pressure from the Beijing and Hong Kong Governments? Can I press him on what the Government’s policy is with regard to the immediate and future viability of the court and the continuing participation of UK and Commonwealth justices in its work? Should they stay as exemplars of judicial independence and help to maintain the rule of law, or leave to avoid their independence being compromised?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree with both my noble and learned friend’s points. On his specific question on the judiciary, as he will acknowledge and as he knows from his own experience and insights, the UK judiciary is independent of the UK Government and makes its own assessment. We have already heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, about the continued service of UK judges specifically, but he has made the point—which is also the Government’s position—about the importance of judicial independence and the rule of law. The situation is currently under constant review.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, multiple examples of highly regrettable actions by China go far beyond British values and the values of our allies. How has this deterioration been allowed to happen to the degree that it has? Is it a breakdown in diplomacy— I suspect that megaphone diplomacy is probably ineffective—or are some political asks now too difficult to achieve? Does the Minister agree that there needs to be an urgent, all-encompassing consideration of the relationship with China, rather than a piecemeal approach, to cover all aspects, including climate change, human rights, security, defence, and trade and supply chains, from which a policy of coherent consistency can be derived?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, some of the questions the noble Viscount poses are for the Chinese Administration to answer. We deeply regret the actions they have taken recently in Hong Kong. We have reacted as we said we would, with the various statements we have made on BNO status. On reassessing our relationship, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the Statement he made on 20 July, China has undergone an extraordinary transformation and the UK Government recognise its success. It is a key partner when it comes to important issues such as climate change. Once again, we call upon the Chinese to recognise their international responsibilities, protect the “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, and provide basic civil and human rights for its own citizens.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary is correct about the importance and place of China in the world but China’s human rights record, especially as it concerns Uighurs, has been well known for some time. In the light of the recent US Uighurs human rights act, will Her Majesty’s Government consider similar measures and produce a list of Chinese companies involved in the construction and operation of the camps? Given the rising and publicly expressed concern in this country, including by the Board of Deputies, will the Minister now accept that it is high time we took firmer steps to counter Beijing’s harrowing human rights abuses against the Uighurs, and that such abuses should influence negotiations on any future trade deal with China?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I believe the Government have made their position on the deplorable situation faced by the Uighurs in Xinjiang very clear over a number of months—indeed, over years. This problem has been brought to our attention. We have strengthened the work on building alliances to call out the human rights abuses endured by the Uighurs in particular, and we will continue to work to ensure that human rights remain central to our discussions with China on all aspects of our relationship with it.
Baroness Henig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on Monday the Foreign Secretary said he was “stubbornly optimistic” about global Britain, including in our relations with China. The Minister will know that China is one of the countries which the Government have identified as a potential partner for a new trade agreement—one of the many post-Brexit deals the Government are hoping to negotiate. In light of all the disputes and serious human rights issues which have arisen over the past six months, do the Government still aim to conclude a trade deal with China and, if so, in what sort of time- frame, or have they changed their mind and abandoned the idea of an agreement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point about the issue of human rights within the context of trade agreements and negotiations. As I said, we recognise that China has an important role to play where it has supported both UK growth and UK jobs, but we will not accept investment that compromises our national security. The issue of human rights is also very much part of our thinking.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, in responding to the right reverend Prelate, the Minister said that the Government are calling out China over human rights abuses. That is not sufficient. Given that China, despite being led by a so-called Communist Party, relies on the global system of international trade, what scope is there for naming companies that rely on Uighur labour and trying to have a regime whereby people simply do not buy products produced by forced labour?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the issue of modern slavery, led by my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister, ensuring that rights of workers, wherever they may be in the world, are fully protected. I disagree with the noble Baroness: I think we have been very clear and frank, and we have led on the issue of the persecution of Uighurs in Xinjiang and we have done so consistently over a long period.
Lord Polak (Con)
China has just announced its wish to become a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council—yes, my Lords, the Human Rights Council. The Government have rightly condemned China for the appalling and inhumane treatment of the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. They have also rightly condemned China for its crushing of Hong Kong. Currently, China is agreeing a $400 billion economic security deal with the terror-supporting Iranian regime. So, not only is it destroying human rights at home in China; it is clearly a threat to human rights worldwide. History teaches us that condemning is not enough. Will my noble friend the Minister therefore agree with me that the Government should now lead the world and create a coalition of allies to vote against allowing China to take a seat on the UN’s most senior human rights body? Otherwise, our words of condemnation will, sadly, be just words.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I cannot speak for other countries; they will make their decisions on who qualifies and who does not qualify for the Human Rights Council. However, like other member states, I hope, in making a decision we will certainly consider very carefully the human rights records of countries which aspire to speak about human rights at the HRC.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, today the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales published a powerful report on the persecution of the Uighur Muslims. It is based on sound evidence and exemplary legal scholarship and it makes a number of recommendations, one of which is to use the recent Magnitsky regime on targeted sanctions. Secretary of State Pompeo indicated yesterday while here in England that he had used Magnitsky sanctions on a number of Chinese functionaries. Are we in conversation with the United States about who those people might be, and might we follow suit? Secondly, will we consider requesting that China, which denies that persecution takes place and denies the nature of the camps, allows in an investigatory delegation to assess the situation on our Government’s behalf?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s first point, as I have already said, I will not speak about what future designations may be. However, I agree with the noble Baroness; I think we have all been appalled by some of the scenes we have seen recently across the media on the treatment of the Uighurs. They were quite chilling in every respect. On the issue of access to Xinjiang, work was done previously looking at the human rights commissioner visiting China, and I hope that that will come to fruition at some future point.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an historic interest, having fought a case against extradition from the UK to Hong Kong for four and a half years through 12 separate applications for habeas corpus. A senior Hong Kong solicitor told me today that almost all the extradition proceedings now current are concerned with either money laundering or drugs. Now that we have terminated extradition in both directions, how do we ensure that Britain does not become a safe haven for Hong Kong criminals, nor Hong Kong a safe haven for those committing crimes in the UK? Would it not be sensible to have a generous approach to claims for political asylum by young protestors from Hong Kong who do not qualify to come here as a BNO?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, the United Kingdom has been, is and will remain a place where people from all over the world seek asylum for a number of reasons. Each case is judged on its merits, and we have provided protection to many people across the world who have suffered persecution.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, most of the 53 countries that supported Chinese security laws in the UN Human Rights Council were almost certainly either scared of Chinese power and its aggressive nature or had been bought; that particularly applies to countries in Africa and elsewhere with huge loans. We need to ensure that we in this country are not bought. I commend Her Majesty’s Government for being resolute and clear. However, do they have a policy on influencers in Britain, be they individuals or organisations such as Cambridge University—Jesus College is much in the news at the moment, being written about by Charles Moore—who are in the pay of either Chinese companies or receiving large grants from the Chinese Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I would be pleased if my noble friend could write specifically on the concerns he has raised. Of course it is concerning that some do not recognise the situation that has prevailed in Hong Kong or the suffering of the Uighurs, as well as that of other minorities in Xinjiang. It is important that we continue to focus on those. Those who defend or deny those actions need to take a long, hard look at themselves.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Dr Sarah Gilbert from the Oxford group dealing with coronavirus talks of collaboration worldwide on virus research, which we all welcome. To what extent are we collaborating with the Chinese, who are devoting huge resources to finding a vaccine? Can we be assured that if they or we get a breakthrough, we will not allow an hysterical Trump to issue trade threats to prevent us sharing in the benefits? A lot of lives are at stake.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point about collaboration and working with China on the issues that matter. Clearly, China has a role to play on the pandemic, as it does on climate change. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, this is a global pandemic that needs us all to work together for the common good.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in considering Magnitsky sanctions against individuals of the Chinese Communist Party, will Her Majesty’s Government take into account the judgment of the China tribunal in March this year, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, that the abhorrent forced harvesting of organs from Falun Gong prisoners has been perpetrated for years throughout China on a significant scale and that medical testing on detained Uighur prisoners could allow them to become an organ bank?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government have received Sir Geoffrey Nice’s report and I met him a little while ago specifically to discuss it. We will continue to review the content of such reports. What I have seen and what we have assessed reveal a very concerning and deep-rooted challenge regarding organ harvesting. We have raised this issue with the World Health Organization to ensure that it is raised with the Chinese. However, it remains as yet unconvinced that the evidence supports such action.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Collins, and Lisa Nandy, have said. No global issue, such as climate change, dealing with this pandemic or getting global trade functioning properly, is going to be resolved unless China is involved, as the emerging superpower of this century. I understand the Government’s tactics, but what is their long-term strategy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has partly answered the question himself. It is important that we call out China where we see abuses of human rights, that the international system is not being observed or that treaties are not being adhered to or respected, while, equally, recognising that China has an important role to play in areas such as tackling the Covid crisis and climate change.
Lord Rennard (LD) [V]
What does the Minister think of the letter from the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews to the Chinese ambassador about the film shown on Sunday? She said that nobody could
“fail to notice the similarities between what is alleged to be happening in the People’s Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago”.
Will the Minister confirm that we will work with all countries governed by democratic principles and act together in trade negotiations to say that there must be an end to the persecution of the Uighurs and people of any religion, and that breaching legal agreements over Hong Kong and seeking to bully the people of Taiwan is unacceptable?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I have already said that those images we saw were quite startling. They remain etched on everyone’s memories, as we have been reminded by the board of deputies in its letter. It is therefore important that China steps up, respects human rights and affords protections to the Uighurs and all minorities in China.
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, these are extraordinarily serious issues—there are few more so—but does my noble friend the Minister agree that sanctions and increasing isolation are unlikely to produce the result they claim, not least for the people in desperate need they purport to protect? This is extraordinarily hard. Does he not agree that we have to try harder?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, that is why the global human rights regime is specifically aimed at states, not individuals. Our quarrel is not with the people of China.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, none of China’s actions should have come as a surprise to anybody. There has been a warning for quite a long time on its attitude to human rights and to Hong Kong. When did the Government let it know there would be consequences to a continuation of these actions? Do we have certain red lines and standards saying that if it goes further there will be further action?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure the noble Lord will recollect that we warned we would take action, particularly on BNOs, if the national security law was enacted. We informed the Chinese of that. They continued with their actions and we responded with the announcements we have made. We will continue to monitor the situation in Hong Kong, mainland China and other parts. Taiwan was raised, and while we retain our position on the importance of negotiations between the two sides, the issue of human rights has not gone away. It remains live and we will continue to monitor it. Where we need to act, we have acted.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Wednesday 22nd July 2020
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 July 2020 - large font accessible version - (21 Jul 2020)