House of Commons
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has a new strategic framework for official development assistance that focuses on poverty and delivery of sustainable development goals. Specifically, our priorities will be climate, biodiversity, covid, global health, girls’ education, science and research, open societies, conflict, humanitarian assistance directly and trade.
Munira Wilson [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. With international development spending already falling in line with the country’s drop in gross national income, and given the Chancellor’s deplorable plan to slash the UK’s commitment to the world’s poorest still further, it is more important than ever that UK ODA spending directly reaches developing countries and the communities and individuals in those countries who need it most. Could the Minister explain what criteria are being used to ensure that poverty alleviation is prioritised in decisions on spending? How are the Government planning to consult civil society on this?
James Duddridge
I can reassure the hon. Lady that the UK Government remain one of the most generous donors in relation to ODA, with more than £10 billion focused on poverty reduction. Clearly, we will consult with civil society and non-governmental organisations; Lord Ahmad has recently done that, and we will all continue to do that. In addition, £1.3 billion has been focused specifically on covid, and more than 300 programmes have been repurposed to deal with covid issues.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Global poverty has risen for the first time in more than 20 years, and by the end of this year, it is estimated that there will be more than 150 million people in extreme poverty. Against that backdrop, the UK Government recklessly abolished the Department for International Development, they are reneging on their 0.7% of GNI commitment, and they do not even mention eradicating poverty in the seven global challenges that UK aid is to be focused on. Can the Minister explicitly commit to eradicating poverty within the new official development assistance framework, rather than pursuing inhumane and devastating cuts as part of the Prime Minister’s little Britain vanity project?
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman knows that we share a passion for international development. These specific targets do aim to alleviate and eradicate poverty, but the causes of poverty and the solutions to it are complex. That is why the merger of the Departments works, dealing with development and diplomacy alongside one another to overcome the scourge of poverty, which, sadly, has increased not decreased as a result of covid. The joined-up Department will help in the objectives that he and I care so passionately about.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
We are disappointed at Sri Lanka’s withdrawal of support for resolution 30/1; we made that clear in statements at the United Nations Human Rights Council in February, June and September 2020. We are working with international partners and have had discussions with the Sri Lankan Government on how to take this forward at the UNHRC in March. We are committed to the principles of the resolution, and our approach to Sri Lanka will be a priority for the UK at the HRC over the next few months.
Wes Streeting [V]
The UK’s leadership on the issue of human rights in Sri Lanka, in terms of both historical and ongoing human rights abuses, has been critical. We saw, whether through David Miliband as Foreign Secretary or David Cameron as Prime Minister, the importance of leadership at the very highest level. What specifically will the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister do as leaders of the core group ahead of that crucial UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March to ensure that the perpetrators of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka do not go unpunished, and that we can look forward to a future based on truth, justice and reconciliation for all the peoples of Sri Lanka?
Nigel Adams
As I pointed out in my response, we are absolutely committed to the principles of the resolution. My ministerial colleague, Lord Ahmad, discussed human rights and accountability with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister and the high commissioner in November and December respectively. We have spoken with Sri Lankan officials and with Geneva over the last week on these very issues.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
We on the Opposition Benches believe that the Government’s foreign policy should be rooted in our country’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, we deeply regret that in February 2020 the Sri Lankan Government withdrew from their Human Rights Council obligations to promote reconciliation and accountability following the country’s devastating civil war. More recently, the Sri Lankan Government have introduced forced cremation for covid-19 victims, a policy that has absolutely no basis in science, rides roughshod over the traditional practices of Sri Lankan religious minorities and has rightly caused hurt and outrage among Muslim and Christian communities across the UK. So I ask the Minister: what steps has he taken to persuade the Sri Lankan Government to end forced cremations, what work is he doing with international partners ahead of the next Human Rights Council session in March to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government re-engages with the peace, reconciliation and accountability process, and what discussions has he had about human rights in the context of UK-Sri Lankan trade deal negotiations?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and he is right to raise it. We have shared guidance and scientific background with the Government of Sri Lanka on how the UK has ensured that burials can continue to operate in a safe format within the World Health Organisation guidelines. We also discussed, via my colleague Lord Ahmad, the importance of minority rights with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister in November. Our high commissioner to Sri Lanka has raised forced cremation several times with the Sri Lankans—most recently, just over a week ago. We continue to speak with Sri Lanka, and have done so within the last week, and with Geneva regarding its commitment to upholding this resolution. We are certainly committed to it, and we will continue that dialogue.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The resumption of Congress and the certification of Joe Biden’s victory on 7 January sent an essential message that the democratic will of the US people cannot be challenged by a violent minority.
David Linden [V]
In the wake of what happened on Capitol hill, politicians around the world looked on in condemnation at the incendiary language of Mr Trump—without regretting how close a relationship they had formed with the President. Sadly, though, the same cannot be said for political figures in this Government. So I must ask the Foreign Secretary whether he and his party regret cosying up to Trump, kowtowing to him and legitimising him and his racist, climate change-denying rhetoric, or will they remain eclipsed by any populist leader who comes along?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s assertion and caricature are very far from the truth. We made it clear that the scenes by a small but ugly minority in Washington were disgraceful. We also made it clear we had full confidence in the system of checks and balances in the US to provide a definitive result and a smooth transition. We look forward to working with the new Administration.
Damian Collins [V]
There were 342 assaults on journalists in America last year and there have been 13 further this year. Will my right hon. Friend work with the new Administration in America to protect the rights of journalists around the world, and also call on social media companies to do more—[Interruption]—not just to tackle harmful disinformation, but to make sure that social media platforms are not used to incite attacks against journalists?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend. I do not know whether that bell came from his end or our end, but in any event it certainly added a bit of flourish to his question.
Dominic Raab
It’s Amazon, is it? Okay. Thank you, Mr Speaker, as ever.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The press must be allowed to cover events without fear or denial of access. We have discussed our concerns about the violent events that we saw at official level, but also at ministerial level. I have done that myself. I can assure him no British journalists were detained. Of course, working with Canada and others, we have a media freedom coalition, and we certainly look forward to co-operating with the US and many others to pioneer that work through our global leadership year in 2021.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Today, we all utterly condemn the lawless and violent storming of the US Capitol on 6 January, with the FBI identifying the involvement of far-right activists and domestic terrorists. It is clear that, week after week, President Trump’s behaviour, undermining the electoral victory of President-elect Biden, played a key role in inciting the mob. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that this violent episode has damaged democracy, and what urgent steps can be taken to mend the sense that our Government were lukewarm around the election time and failed to uphold the sense of democracy that we all deeply care about?
Dominic Raab
I say to the hon. Lady that the UK was not lukewarm, and she must have missed the Prime Minister’s statement in which he was very clear that what President Trump should have done—[Interruption.] We do not conduct diplomacy by Twitter, unlike the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). We were absolutely clear about it. At the same time, we are also confident in the US system of checks and balances, and we are very much looking forward to working with the new Administration.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
We are very concerned about Iran’s continued systemic non-compliance with its nuclear commitments, and we have made that clear with our E3 partners, including recently at the ministerial meeting of the joint comprehensive plan of action.
Paul Holmes [V]
Recent confirmation from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran has resumed enriching uranium to 20% purity at its Fordow facility is enormously concerning, and it is arguably the most significant breach of the JCPOA. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that his Department will press the new Administration under President-elect Biden to rejoin the deal, and put much-needed pressure on Iran to return to compliance?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right about the risk from the now systemic serial non-compliance from Iran. On 21 December we held a ministerial meeting of the JCPOA ministerial commission, which was an opportunity to set out clearly our position, not just the UK, but with our French and German partners. It is welcome that President-elect Biden and the new Administration have talked about coming back to the JCPOA, and enhancing and strengthening it, and that will be one of the early topics of conversation that we have with the new Administration.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I hope the whole House will join me in welcoming the newest member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on the birth of her second child, which I have just heard about. Before the Secretary of State joins me in offering such congratulations, will he also give some thought to the approach of the new Biden Administration on the Iran deal? He will have read in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, which was expertly helped by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, the various thoughts that we put down, including looking at how we can work with regional partners and allies who are deeply concerned by the change of Administration, and perhaps a change of tone in the White House. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Biden Administration, the UK Administration, and our friends and partners in the region work together to ensure that we stop this malevolent dictatorship expanding its evil reach any further?
Dominic Raab
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I congratulate both parents on their new child—a very happy moment. We are obviously putting a lot of thought into how we engage with the new Administration, including on Iran. The E3 unity that we have shown throughout is a value of strength, and a lever for the United States and the new Administration. My hon. Friend will also be aware that there is a window of opportunity between now and the Iranian presidential elections in early June, to try to make some definitive progress. Against that timeframe we ought to be able to focus minds.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The UK is committed to rapid equitable access to safe and effective vaccines through multilateral collaboration. We are combining our diplomatic influencing, development expertise, and money to tackle covid-19 and secure vaccines. The UK is a founding member, and one of the largest donors to the COVAX advance market commitment. We have committed £548 million to this international initiative for global equitable access, which through match funding has encouraged other donors to commit an additional $1 billion.
Mr Dhesi
The world is on the brink of a “catastrophic moral failure” according to the head of the World Health Organisation. Unless there is a collaborative global approach, the pandemic and the ensuing human and economic suffering will merely be prolonged. Does the Minister therefore agree that any hoarding of vaccines by richer nations is unforgivable and unconscionable, and that we must all work collectively for the betterment of all humanity by simultaneously helping people within our nation while helping to provide for those who are less affluent than us?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point and I am sure that that is why he will agree with me that the COVAX AMC is such an important tool and facility for us to help developing countries. This particular facility will support access to covid-19 vaccinations for up to 92 developing countries. This will contribute to the supply of 1 billion doses in 2021 and the vaccination of 500 million people. Let me be clear, Mr Speaker: the UK is at the forefront of multilateral efforts to ensure equitable global access through the COVAX facility.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy [V]
Yesterday, the director of the World Health Organisation stated that 39 million vaccine doses had been administered in 49 higher income countries, whereas in one poor country just 25 doses had been given—not 25 million, not 25,000, just 25. Does the Minister agree that global equality on the vaccine roll-out should not just be a moral imperative but a strategic one to stop the spread of the virus? If she does agree, why do her Government not support calls for pharmaceutical companies to waive intellectual property rights and openly share technology through the World Health Organisation covid technology access pool?
Wendy Morton
When it comes to vaccines, we have been very clear that we support equitable access. This is a global pandemic. This is a virus that respects no boundaries and no barriers. That is why we are working and leading the way at the forefront of multilateral efforts to ensure we get equitable access through this really important COVAX facility.
Rachael Maskell [V]
I want to press the Minister further, because none of us is safe until all of us are safe. Clearly, with the threat of the spread and the mutation of the virus we are all at risk until the world is vaccinated. Will the Minister say specifically what work her Government have done to overcome intellectual property rights to ensure the manufacture of the vaccine in the global south and ensure that those countries that currently cannot get access to the vaccine can distribute it locally?
Wendy Morton
The UK believes that a robust and fair intellectual property system is a key part of the innovation framework that allows economies to grow and become innovators, while enabling society to benefit from knowledge and ideas. We believe that non-exclusive voluntary licensing has advantages over compulsory licensing, because it creates a sounder basis for long lasting beneficial relationships and incentives to create and commercialise new inventions such as those life-changing vaccines.
Dr Wallis [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer. What steps is her Department taking to ensure that the poorest and most disadvantaged countries have access to vaccines?
Wendy Morton
I think this goes to the heart of this particular question today. Our commitment will support access to covid-19 vaccines for up to 92 developing countries by contributing to the supply of 1 billion doses in 2021. That is only possible through the COVAX AMC facility, which we have been leading on from the front with our big commitment of £548 million to that facility and the encouragement of others to step up to the mark and reach the $1 billion target, too.
Mark Pawsey [V]
The Minister has set out how important it is for people around the world to be vaccinated against covid-19 and reminded us about the UK’s strong record of supporting vaccination in the developing world. Is she confident that we will be able to continue to meet our international commitments on vaccination if we reduce our levels of aid from 0.7% of GDP?
Wendy Morton
I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in international development. The seismic impact of the pandemic on the UK economy has forced us to take tough but necessary decisions, including our temporary reduction of ODA from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income. We will return to that level as soon as the fiscal situation allows, but let me reassure him that we will remain a world-leading aid donor, spending that 0.5% percent of GNI. When it comes to our commitment, particularly on vaccines and vaccinations, I point to the Gavi vaccine summit, which the Prime Minister hosted in the early part of last year. At that summit the UK Government committed to £1.65 billion over the next five years to support Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. That will immunise 300 million children and save up to 8 million lives.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I echo the concerns of colleagues across the House that vaccine nationalism is dangerous and self-defeating. This is not an Olympics; it is a global problem that we must deal with on a multilateral basis. I pay tribute to what the UK has done in donating to the COVAX system. There is still a $4.3 billion dollar shortfall to this and, as we have heard, nobody is safe until everybody is safe on a global scale. What plans are there to convene a Gavi II summit to bring international donors together to work with colleagues across the world to make sure that nobody gets left behind in this? And would she condemn colleagues in her Government who are indulging in vaccine nationalism and pretending that one country is doing better than another, when we really are facing a common challenge?
Wendy Morton
This is a global pandemic and I commend the work of the Government in the vaccination programme that we have. I look to my constituency and the tremendous work that Walsall Manor Hospital and the Oak Park centre are doing. Alongside that, let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to equitable access. The global Gavi summit that we held earlier last year was just one example of the leading part that the UK Government are taking when it comes to the fight against the covid-19 pandemic.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The longer the pandemic rages, the more damage will be done to ordinary families around the world who are suffering from a crisis they did not create. We have an opportunity to save countless lives and livelihoods here in the UK and abroad by playing our part in co-operating with other countries and using our influence to bring them together. As we have seen during the pandemic, the Government have consistently struggled with transparency and accountability, so will the United Kingdom fulfil the ask made yesterday by the director general of the World Health Organisation and make public all bilateral contracts that they have signed for covid-19 vaccines, including on volumes, pricing and delivery dates, so that we can deal with production bottlenecks and ensure equitable access to the vaccine, giving us all the best chance of beating this deadly virus?
Wendy Morton
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s assertions when it comes to transparency. We, the UK, are absolutely at the forefront of multilateral efforts on ensuring equitable global access. If we look at what the UK Government have done, we see that we have contributed to CEPI—the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations—in the early part of this pandemic and to FIND, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics. We have contributed to Gavi and to the COVAX AMC. This is all about helping the world’s poorest. We have also flexed a lot of our normal aid work to help countries that are suffering from the pandemic, because we know that, as well as the primary impact of covid-19, there are many secondary impacts.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
The Minister is right that vaccines alone are not enough, and she is aware that the International Development Committee has just done an inquiry on the secondary impacts, which show that developing countries are suffering economically through their healthcare and through gender inequality. What efforts and preparations are being made by FCDO to prevent there being a development mountain to climb after the pandemic subsides?
Wendy Morton
I recognise the work of the IDC and I am very pleased that its work is continuing. Let me just reiterate that when it comes to covid-19, the UK and the FCDO remain at the forefront. With the funds that we have, we continue to support the world’s poorest, and we will continue to focus on the bottom billion. Yes, it is about working with the development world, but it is also about working, where we can, with the public sector and the private sector. I look to the example of Oxford-AstraZeneca. The UK Government invested £84 million in helping to develop that vaccine, and we are now rolling it out. We have committed to the AMC, and we are absolutely committed to helping the world’s poorest.[Official Report, 25 January 2021, Vol. 688, c. 2MC.]
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
Scientific advances funded by the UK have helped drive reductions in extreme poverty, declines in childhood mortality and increases in life expectancy across the developing world. Our investments, including in affordable rapid diagnostic tests for covid-19 and the world’s first child-friendly antimalarial drug, are delivering benefit to hundreds of millions. We will continue to leverage UK and global scientific excellence and invest in cutting-edge technology and research to provide solutions to critical development challenges.
Dr Murrison [V]
The Government are doing extremely well in rolling out the vaccine in the UK. The AstraZeneca vaccine in particular is potentially deployable in developing countries. Will the Minister say at what point we will pass vaccines that we have ordered that greatly surpass the need of our population to COVAX? Does he agree that it is vital that, in advance of that, we do everything in our power to develop healthcare infrastructure in developing countries, without which a credible vaccine roll-out is just not possible?
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I agree that we should be incredibly proud of the work that we have done with regard to the vaccine.
I have had meetings with my Philippine counterparts on vaccines, alongside AstraZeneca. We are supporting equitable access through our funding for the COVAX facility. We are one of the largest donors to the COVAX advance market commitment to support access for 92 developing countries; we have committed £548 million. COVAX’s partners, which include Gavi, the World Health Organisation and UNICEF, have huge experience in supporting developing country immunisation systems and the programming of immunisation. We expect the initial roll-out to COVAX AMC countries to start in the first quarter of this year.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The UK is a global leader in promoting action on antimicrobial resistance. It is an international priority. We helped achieve the 2016 UN political declaration on AMR, and UK aid contributes significantly to AMR efforts around the world. This includes our flagship Fleming fund, which builds capacity on AMR in lower and middle-income countries, focusing on investments in water, sanitation and hygiene; healthcare facilities; and broader health systems strengthening.
Kevin Hollinrake [V]
A leading Oxford-based professor of microbiology today described covid as “the short, sharp earthquake” and antimicrobial resistance as
“the massive tsunami in the background.”
On the basis that AMR in pigs and chickens has trebled in developing nations since 2000, will my hon. Friend press for more action to limit the unnecessary use of antibiotics in humans, pigs and chickens?
Wendy Morton
This is a really important point. My hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in this topic for some time in this place. We absolutely recognise the risks to human health of the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in agriculture and food production, as seen through our national action plan. The vast majority of global antimicrobial use, as he will probably be aware, is in agriculture. We are a major funder of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, which supports low and middle-income countries in controlling agriculture-associated AMR risks and is working to understand how antimicrobials are used, by whom and how that contributes to the misuse of antimicrobials.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK remains deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Yemen. We welcome the positive steps towards implementation of the Riyadh agreement, including the formation of a new inclusive Yemeni Cabinet. We condemn in the strongest terms the Houthi attack on Aden airport, which killed over 25 civilians, and we call on the Houthis to cease such attacks and demonstrate a renewed commitment to the political process.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary warned in September, Yemen has never looked more likely to slide into famine. We are using our £214 million in aid funding to help around 500,000 vulnerable people each month and to enrol 25,000 children into malnutrition prevention programmes. While we share the US concerns about the Houthis’ continual attacks on civilians in Yemen and cross-border attacks into Saudi Arabia, we do not intend to proscribe the Houthis at this time, but we will keep this under regular review.
Scott Benton
The crisis in Yemen is of great concern to all of us, and it is perfectly clear that Iran is exploiting the conflict for its own ends. Reports of Iran sending advanced unmanned aerial vehicles to the Houthis will no doubt only inflame tensions further. Does the Minister agree that until Iranian aspirations for regional dominance are curtailed, this conflict and many others will continue and more lives will sadly be lost?
James Cleverly
We must see an end to Iran’s destabilising influence in Yemen, which has stoked further conflict. We have raised this issue directly with the Iranian Government. Iran’s provision of weapons to the Houthis is in contravention of UN Security Council resolution 2216 and the UN Security Council embargo on the export of weapons by Iran. We remain deeply concerned at Iran’s political, financial and military support to a number of militant and proscribed groups in the region, and we will continue working with international partners to dissuade Iran from proliferation and wider destabilising actions.
Alison Thewliss [V]
Mark Lowcock, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief, has clearly stated that the US’s designation of the Houthis as a terrorist group will push Yemen into a famine on a scale not seen for 40 years and that only a reversal of the US decision will fix this, so could I ask the Minister what the UK Government are doing to avert this catastrophe and get the US Administration to change their mind?
James Cleverly
Following President Trump’s Administration’s decision to designate the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organisation, we have requested that the US put in place comprehensive exemptions to limit the humanitarian impact and the impact on commercial imports and the UN peace effort. Our priority is to support the UN peace effort, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will engage with the incoming US Administration on this and a number of other important bilateral issues.
Rebecca Long Bailey [V]
Salford is home to one of the UK’s oldest Yemeni communities, as well as charities providing humanitarian relief to the region, and they fear that the US designation will have a devastating impact, as humanitarian access and the ability of food supplies and other goods to reach Yemeni civilians will be severely obstructed. I welcome the comments that the Minister has just made, but will he go one step further? Will he contact President-elect Biden and ask him to revoke the designation when he starts in office?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will no doubt engage at the earliest opportunity with the incoming Administration in the White House. I have made it clear that we have already requested the US to put in place comprehensive exemptions to facilitate humanitarian support. We will continue to work both bilaterally with the US and internationally through the UN and others to protect the people suffering in Yemen, to prevent famine where we can and to work with all parties involved to bring this extended conflict to a conclusion.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]
As we have heard, from today President Trump and Mike Pompeo have designated the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organisation. That will make peace in Yemen more difficult to achieve and could now lead to the starvation of more than 1 million people, yet our Government have said and done little, and even abstained at the United Nations Security Council. Why have the Government failed to condemn this obviously dangerous step? Will they now join us in calling on Joe Biden to reverse this decision as quickly as possible?
James Cleverly
The idea that the UK has not been active on this issue is self-evidently nonsense. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have discussed the issue with each other, and with the international community through the UN. We have provided significant amounts of humanitarian support to Yemen. We have lobbied to ensure that humanitarian access remains. This is a genuine global tragedy, and I am incredibly proud of the work that the UK Government have done, both on their own and in conjunction with the international community, to bring this terrible, terrible conflict to a conclusion.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The British Government remain concerned at the continued conflict in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, and I urge both sides to end fighting, protect civilians and allow unfettered humanitarian access. The Foreign Secretary has stressed those points directly to Prime Minister Abiy, and to Deputy Prime Minister Demeke when he visited the UK recently.
Duncan Baker [V]
Mrs Peta Benson, a constituent of mine, has supported an orphanage in Tigray for years. Like many, we are extremely worried by the reported appalling humanitarian crisis that conflicts have brought to the region. Can my hon. Friend tell me that every effort is being made by the British Government to calm those hostilities and further de-escalate civil war in that region of Ethiopia?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for his activity on this issue and can reassure him that we are making such efforts. I certainly underlined the need to end the fighting and prioritise the protection of civilians when I spoke to the Ethiopian Finance Minister last month, and I have also raised the issue of the conflict with regional leaders in the past few weeks. The Foreign Secretary and I will continue to raise these points, and I thank my hon. Friend for the contribution he is making to the debate.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The UK has invested £3.7 billion in tackling malnutrition since the nutrition for growth summit in 2013. The UK has reached 55.1 million children, women and adolescent girls through our nutrition programmes from 2015 to 2020. I was really pleased when the Foreign Secretary appointed the UK’s first special envoy for famine prevention and humanitarian affairs last year, announcing alongside that £119 million to address food insecurity and a £30 million partnership with UNICEF to address acute malnutrition.
David Mundell
It was excellent to see UK leadership on global nutrition acknowledged by world leaders at the Canada nutrition for growth event in December, which launched 2021 as a year of action for nutrition. That could hardly be more timely, given that covid-19 is causing rates of malnutrition worldwide to rise for the first time in decades. So nutrition must be central to my hon. Friend’s new Department’s objectives for aid spending. For example, it is impossible to meaningfully progress girls’ education while rates of malnutrition among girls are on the rise. Will the Government therefore urgently review their commitment to tackle malnutrition as part of their participation in the year of action?
Wendy Morton
I know my right hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in this and has been trying to get a question at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office orals for some time. It is evident that good nutrition underpins education and health outcomes, and adult learning, in developing countries. That was the rationale for the UK playing a lead role on nutrition over the past decade. The prevention and treatment of malnutrition remain key to achieving the Government’s commitment to ending the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns and children. The Department is, of course, beginning a rigorous internal prioritisation process in response to the spending review announcement, and we will update on the implications of that for nutrition as soon as is feasible.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
We are aware of reports that an Indian soldier has been charged after the deaths of three Kashmiri men. We welcome assurances from the Indian Government that their army is committed to ethical conduct, and that disciplinary action will be undertaken in accordance with Indian law where necessary. Where we have concerns about human rights in Kashmir we will continue to raise them with the India and Pakistani Governments.
Sarah Owen [V]
Three young Kashmiris working as labourers were abducted and brutally murdered by an army counter-insurgency officer. Illegal weapons were strapped to their bodies and they were wrongly branded hardcore terrorists. I know the Minister shares my concern that horrific abuses in Kashmir are not new or uncommon, but as our country continues to chart a new course internationally, can he tell us what the Government are actually doing to protect human rights in Kashmir and why the Secretary of State, sat next to him, lacks the courage to speak out against injustices around the world?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady, I know, is very passionate about this area and speaks on behalf of many of her constituents who have an interest in Kashmir. I can assure her that the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with his counterpart as recently as December on this issue. India and Pakistan are long-standing important friends of the UK. We encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintain stability in the region. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator; it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir.
Mr Baker [V]
A Kashmiri man showed me footage of his home in Kashmir on fire, purportedly after being shelled by India. I have provided to the Government some evidence that cluster munitions were used by India against another village in Kashmir. These things really matter to my constituents. After the pandemic, people in Wycombe could easily be in their homes in Kashmir. Is it not time to take seriously a UN report on the human rights situation on both sides of the line of control, to have a co-ordinated international effort to put UN human rights inspectors on both sides of the line of control and then to move forward with a new human rights framework for the UK, which can reassure diaspora communities such as mine in Wycombe that the UK is standing up for their human rights when they are in the countries from which their families and their ancestors hail?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is 100% correct to raise this matter again. He is a constant champion for his constituents on this area. We do recognise that there are human rights concerns in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Again, we encourage all states to ensure that domestic laws are in line with international standards and to co-operate with UN human rights officials and all mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. We have requested permission for officials from the British high commission in New Delhi to visit India-administered Kashmir as soon as the situation permits.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Since the last oral questions, I have visited India, where I had positive conversations with Prime Minister Modi, Foreign Minister Jaishankar and others about strengthening our trade, our security co-operation and, indeed, human rights, which Members have asked about in this session. Last week, I introduced measures to ensure that no British organisations—Government or private—profit from, or contribute to, human rights violations in Xinjiang. Last month, we delivered the historic EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, which is an excellent deal for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Rebecca Long Bailey [V]
I certainly welcome the comments of the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa earlier regarding the situation in Yemen. However, will the Government now back up their words with action, and suspend all arms sales and military support to the Saudi-led coalition for use in Yemen, especially in the context of President-elect Biden’s commitment to end the war in Yemen?
Dominic Raab
We are absolutely pushing every lever to try to precipitate peace in relation to Yemen. Our arms exports to Saudi, to which the hon. Member referred, are subject to a world-leading and very rigorous process, so we are ensuring that we do everything that is required on that front. On 3 December, I announced an extra £40 million of UK aid to help 1.5 million households to access food and medicines, and of course we are pushing, through every possible avenue, the efforts of UN special envoy Martin Griffiths.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right; we have taken decisive action in relation to South Africa and South America. We have also, as a precautionary measure, suspended the travel corridors and ensured that we have a system in place whereby people have to have a pre-departure negative test. The passenger locator form is backed up by increased enforcement by both Public Health England and Border Force. Of course, we have also reintroduced quarantine on arrival, with extra checks to ensure that people are resting in the home.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary had strong words about the arrest of Alexei Navalny, but he knows that those words will not be taken seriously by Moscow until the UK takes action to disrupt the networks of dirty money on which this regime depends. How many of the Russia report recommendations have now been implemented?
Dominic Raab
We, like the hon. Lady, are absolutely appalled by Alexei Navalny’s politically motivated detention. It is a Kafkaesque situation, frankly, when the victim of this Novichok poisoning, instead of being dealt with and supported, has been arrested. The hon. Lady will know that we have taken action, including imposing sanctions on six individuals and the State Scientific-Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology. We are leading efforts in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is the real action that will send a message to Russia.
Lisa Nandy
The Secretary of State seems to be struggling with the answer, so I can tell him that the answer is none. Of 21 recommendations made 15 months ago, the Government have implemented not a single one: no action on foreign agents, no action on golden visas, and the London laundromat is still very much open for business. Can he not see the problem? For as long as the City of London acts as a haven for dark money, he can tweet all he likes, but those words will be met with nothing but derision in Moscow.
Let me ask the Foreign Secretary an easy one that he should be able to answer. We know that the laws in this country on espionage and foreign interference on British soil are not fit for purpose, so will he commit to the House today that he will bring forward legislation to fix this great big gaping hole in our defences—not in the coming months and not at a date to be determined, but before this House rises for recess next month?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady raises the report that preceded the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. I am explaining to her what we are doing in response to that, which I thought was what she cared about. Not only have we introduced sanctions on the individuals and the organisation to which I referred; we led the joint statement in December, supported by 58 countries in the OPCW, calling for Russia to be held to account for what it does. If she really wanted to do something about the issue at hand, she would support and commend those efforts.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. We recognise the importance of securing a budget deal between Irbil and Baghdad. The UK continues to encourage both sides to work towards resolving their issues to get a sustainable budget solution, but also to solve internal boundary disputes. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa discussed this with the Governments of Iraq and of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq during his visit in November and December. We regularly raise this in the United Nations and will continue to do so.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Dominic Raab
I have had detailed discussions with the Home Secretary about the response to this and other examples of hostile state action. We have one of the most open and generous asylum systems in the world, and we continually focus on the support we provide for civil society groups, including media organisations in both Russia and Belarus.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) [V]
James Duddridge
I must say that my hon. Friend dresses better at home than he does in the House of Commons.
Travel advice has always been against all travel to Syria. There is no consular support. We do not have a diplomatic presence. For those reasons, sadly, we do not have a firm number. However, I invite my hon. Friend to discuss privately the security issues and very difficult situation of some of these cases—as he very well knows—with the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa to try to carve out a better solution to the problems that he quite rightly and so eloquently and visually addresses.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
We are leaving no stone unturned to secure the release of Nazanin, but also all the other dual nationals arbitrarily detained. I have spoken to Nazanin—she is subject to furlough at the moment—a number of times over recent months. We are doing everything we can. The fact that she is on furlough and not in Evin prison is a sign that we have made some progress, although not enough, in securing her release and return back to her loved ones at home.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is always a great champion for all the different community groups in his constituency. He is right to talk about the importance of balance in these UN resolutions. In fact, our record has not changed in recent years; it has been consistent. We support the Palestinian right to self-determination consistent with a two-state solution. We support the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have called out illegal Israeli settlements. In relation to Jerusalem, what he says is not quite correct, because the resolution explicitly notes its importance as a holy site for the three monotheistic religions. We have also voted against one resolution and abstained on three precisely because we did not feel they were balanced.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Dominic Raab
We can talk to the banks, but of course they will follow the designation made by the US. As the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), said earlier, we are concerned that those sanctions and that designation will not allow for the humanitarian aid that we, the hon. Lady and others across the House feel is absolutely essential to alleviate the blight of the conflict in Yemen. It is also right to say that the effort has to be on bringing that conflict to resolution, which can happen only through Martin Griffiths and the UN-sponsored plan.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]
James Duddridge
I could not agree more, and I am more than happy to visit Blyth Valley to talk to my hon. Friend’s constituents of all ages. Young constituents, in particular, are a powerful catalyst for change. As COP26 hosts, we will work with all international partners, including young people across the globe. I am particularly interested in talking to them about the fact that the Italian Government are having a pre-COP26 youth event in Milan, bringing together 400 youth delegates. It will make a final declaration, which will be submitted to COP26. I look forward to returning to my office soon and seeing the invitation on my desk.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest and passion. What has happened to the Rohingya is a heartbreaking story. Not only has the United Kingdom supported the diplomatic efforts, and not only is it a major provider of aid to deal with the refugee crisis, but, as she may be aware, it has imposed travel bans and asset freezes through our Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for the persecution of the Rohingya.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who will do a fantastic job in this crucial area. On the UK’s approach to girls’ education, we have a global target of getting 40 million more girls into education, and ensuring that they can have at least 12 years’ quality education. We want to get 12 million young girls literate by the age of 20. We will be discussing that with the new Administration, and I have already discussed it with leading members of Congress, including Speaker Pelosi.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I discussed the protests with Foreign Minister Jaishankar when I visited India in December. Of course, this is a major, Government-led reform that reduces subsidies as part of the liberalisation process, but the hon. Gentleman makes some important points about freedom of protest and sensitivity. Of course, India’s politics is very much our politics, but we need to respect its democratic process.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
We are aware of the factsheet. I have had discussions with Secretary of State Pompeo about this, and will continue to discuss it, I am sure, with the new Administration. Our focus has been on the World Health Organisation review, making sure that the WHO can access the area to conduct the review, and that it has proper access, so that it can come up with the answers that people want. WHO officers and the review team were given access last Thursday, and that is a first step. We need to ensure that they can proceed through that inquiry in order to give the proper, clear and fact-based answers to the questions that my hon. Friend rightly poses.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
I gave an update to the House on the situation recently, just a few days ago. We regard the reports of forced labour, the conditions of detention and the forced sterilisation of women as grave violations of human rights, which is why we have introduced new measures to prevent any British businesses from feeding into the supply chains, or any businesses in China from profiting in the UK from this gruesome trade.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this question, and for highlighting the work that so many civil society organisations do. They are key partners for the FCDO in delivering the response to the covid-19 pandemic. They work as critical delivery partners with other donors and with international organisations, such as the UN, that are active in responding to the crisis. We have allocated almost £67 million directly to international and UK-based charities, so that they can play their critical role in supporting vulnerable communities with the humanitarian impact of this virus. I thank World Vision for the work they do, and if they contact me, I will happily arrange a meeting.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Petition
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]
Earlier this month, Citizens Advice Scotland launched Big Energy Saving Month, which is incredibly important, not least because approximately 25% of Glaswegians live in fuel poverty. Tonight, I present a petition on behalf of my east end constituents calling for a reduction in VAT for home energy bills. The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that there is widespread public support and acknowledgement of the need for countries across the UK to lockdown to suppress the spread of coronavirus; notes that in doing so many constituents are experiencing greatly increased energy costs as a result of staying at home; and declares that people should not have to bare unfairly the financial burden of complying with stay-at-home guidance in the height of a pandemic and during cold winter weather when energy bills are typically higher.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward measures to temporarily reduce VAT liability for home energy bills.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002644]
UK Musicians: EU Visa Arrangements
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on visa arrangements for UK musicians in the EU.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
This Government recognise the importance of the UK’s world-leading cultural and creative industries. We recently demonstrated that commitment by providing an unprecedented £1.57 billion package of support to help them through the covid-19 pandemic. It is therefore entirely consistent that, during the negotiations with the EU, we pushed for ambitious arrangements allowing performers and artists to work across Europe.
Our proposals, which were informed by our extensive consultation and engagement with the UK’s cultural and creative industries, would have allowed UK musicians and other cultural touring professionals to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily, without the need for work permits. Regrettably, those mutually beneficial proposals were rejected by the EU. As a result, UK cultural professionals seeking to tour in the EU will be required to check domestic immigration and visitor rules for each member state in which they intend to tour. Although some member states allow touring without a permit, others will require a pre-approved visa and/or a work permit.
It is absolutely vital that we now support our touring sectors to understand the new rules associated with working and travelling in the EU. We are delivering an extensive programme of engagement with the sector to help them understand any new requirements. That includes working with Arts Council England and various other sector bodies, to help distil and clarify the new rules.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has already made very clear, we will also look at whether we can work with our partners in EU member states to find ways to make life easier for those working in the creative industries in our respective countries. In the meantime, we will continue close dialogue with the creative and cultural sectors, to understand the ongoing impacts and ensure that that they have the right support at the right time to continue to thrive.
Pete Wishart [V]
That is an immensely disappointing response from the Minister. Touring Europe means everything to our artists and musicians: the thrill of that first tour, crammed into the Transit van with all your gear; four to a room in a cheap hotel in Paris, Rotterdam or Hamburg; using what is left of the fee for a post-gig beer; the dream of coming back on a lavish tour bus, staying at five-star hotels—gone, all gone. Musicians and artists are mere collateral in this Government’s obsession with ending freedom of movement.
Does the Minister acknowledge that visas and carnets will render such tours beyond the financial reach of future generations of new musicians? Does she appreciate that is not just our new musicians but the whole creative sector that will have increased costs and red tape? What will she say to the crews, the technicians, the set designers, the transport? We were promised by her predecessor that arrangements would not change. What has happened to that commitment? The EU said it was prepared to offer a 90-day deal. Why was that turned down? The Government said they were holding out for a better deal, but we have ended up with nothing. How could that happen? Given that the Minister’s approach is totally contradicted by the EU, will she provide complete transparency in all these negotiations?
Our constituents really care about this; 263,000 have now signed the petition organised by our artists, calling for this to get sorted. We do not want any more of the EU-blaming—we have had quite enough of that in the past few years; we just want the Government to fix this. The Secretary of State has said that the door is still open, so will she walk through and fix it out? Will she restart talks with the EU immediately, to get our artists the arrangements that they need? Will she let the music tour freely once again?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this is incredibly disappointing news for the music sector—it is not the deal that we wanted; but I am afraid that in many other senses he has fallen for some very selective briefing. The EU did not offer a deal that would have worked for musicians. It is quite simple. The EU made a very broad offer, which would not have been compatible with the Government’s manifesto commitment to take back control of our borders. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the British people, the British public, voted for that at successive elections.
To the extent that the EU proposals might have covered music, they would not have worked for touring artists at all. The EU proposals covered ad hoc performances. They would not have covered support staff or technicians at all—which, as the hon. Gentleman will remember from his touring days, are essential. I would love him to explain to me how tours will happen without support staff or technicians, because although I am not a music professional, I cannot see how that could be the case.
The UK’s proposals were based on what those in the music industry said they wanted. We spoke to them long and hard about that. I am fascinated to think that the hon. Gentleman knows better than bodies like the Musicians’ Union. We fought very hard— [Interruption.] We fought very hard for what it wanted, but the EU would not play ball.
Let us focus on the future. If the EU is willing to consider the UK’s very sensible proposals, the door is open, and yes, I am very happy to walk through it. I will be the first to walk through that door. A mutually beneficial deal is not what the SNP Members want, though, is it? They voted for a no-deal Brexit, so under their plans, that would have been even harder. As those in the music industry have said, what they need now is clarity, not recriminations; and that is what the British Government are working to provide.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
This issue is not just about musicians being able to travel and perform with ease. They also need somewhere to strut their stuff. Will the Minister commit to an overarching strategy to get live music thriving again, involving a restart of urgent negotiations for a pan-EU musicians visa, bearing in mind previous EU intransigence and by listening to the music industry? Will the Government also commit to backing covid insurance for our festivals and live music sector to allow them to plan for the summer and beyond?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is quite a lot we can do. The sector needs clarity and certainty, and because the situation with every member state is different, that will be tricky to provide. We therefore need to make it as simple, easy and clear as we can for them to tour and go about their business, and that is what we are setting about to do.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about insurance, which we understand is a barrier to many live music events taking place later in the year. We are in discussions with our colleagues in the Treasury about that at the moment.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As we have heard, the Government still blame the EU, so, to get this issue straight, will the Minister make clear what exactly the EU proposed, when it was proposed and whether the UK offer was more than the standard visa policy?
The Minister said that the EU offer was a broad offer not consistent with taking back control of our borders. Will she go further and explain specifically when that was turned down? Finally, so that we can all be clear, will she place in the Library of the House of Commons all correspondence between the UK and the EU and all correspondence between UK Government Departments on this issue?
What matters is what happens now. A third of the creative industry is self-employed, and the situation is a massive kick in the teeth for a group of workers who are already having the worst year in living memory. What representations has the UK made to resolve the situation? What meetings are scheduled? Will the UK still rely on mode 4 exemptions, even though doing so is without precedent? Does the Minister agree that the resolution to the situation requires a supplementary agreement?
The Minister must go further and spell out exactly what the proposal is from the UK to resolve the situation. When musicians and creative people tour, they do not just power up an economy that is massively important to us; they represent us all on the global stage, so we must get this resolved now.
Caroline Dinenage
I am happy to talk the hon. Lady through the situation. The EU tabled texts regarding short-stay visa-free travel during the negotiations, and embedded in the proposal was a declaration that would have covered a very small number of paid activities. With regard to artists, it covered ad hoc performances. Of course, the declaration was non-binding and did not address things such as technical or support staff. Crucially, it did not cover work permits, which EU member states can put in place unilaterally. Furthermore, the proposals would have enshrined permanent visa-free short stays for all current and future EU citizens in the agreement, and that is not compatible with our manifesto commitment to take back control of our borders.
Our proposals were based on the views of the music industry and would have been mutually beneficial across the EU and the UK. They would have allowed musicians and support staff to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily without needing work permits. The EU did not propose and would not accept a tailored deal for musicians, artists and their support staff to tour across the EU and the UK.
As I have said, the UK’s door remains open should the EU change its mind. We recognise that the outcome means that some additional requirements will need to be met for the sector, and we are working with the sector as fast as we can to put in place the support and information that it needs. Labour Members voted for this deal in the knowledge of what it involved, including the end of free movement. What they are asking us to go back and renegotiate now is exactly what we negotiated at that time. They cannot have it both ways; they need consistency. What the sector needs more than anything at the moment is certainty, and that is what we are working to provide.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) [V]
The international success of UK musicians has, for decades, been not just a big economic benefit for the country but a hugely successful way of promoting our culture around the world, so it seems extraordinary that any British Government would turn down a deal that allowed our musicians to tour if that deal was practical. Can the Minister assure me that that is not what happened? What is she doing to resume negotiations, so that we can get a realistic deal, which is essential for the future of our music industry?
Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Government recognise the vital importance of the UK’s thriving cultural and creative industries. That is why we pushed for ambitious arrangements for performers and artists to be able to work right across Europe after the end of freedom of movement. The EU did not accept our proposals, so now we need to ensure that we are working to facilitate those arrangements as best we can. That means giving musicians and others access to information and guidance about the criteria for each EU member state and then working with those individual member states to ensure that the process is as seamless, fast, effective and simple as it can be.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Covid has been gruelling for the industry. The last thing it needs is the new Brexit visa barriers that we now know the UK Government—not the EU, but the UK Government—insisted upon. There is no money to be made from streaming. Artists make their income by touring. New barriers, visas and endless red tape mean that EU performers will not come to our festivals and our performers will face prohibitive new costs. It is wantonly cruel.
The Minister mentioned the Musicians’ Union, so let me quote its head. He said:
“the government fails to understand the issues facing touring musicians”.
He is an expert, and I know that the UK Government do not like experts, but this is more Brexit zealotry causing misery. Will the Secretary of State listen, intervene and publish that correspondence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) requested? Put it in the Library—let us read it.
Caroline Dinenage
There is a close historical relationship between the UK and the EU. That must endure, and it will endure. Artists and musicians from the EU are welcome. They are encouraged to visit and perform in the UK and vice versa, and the Government will do everything they can to make that as seamless as possible.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing to support the arts and culture sector through the pandemic. Can she confirm how many music venues and other music organisations have benefited from the Government’s £1.57 billion culture recovery fund?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does to champion the cultural institutions across her constituency. She is a great voice for the people of North Dorset—sorry, I mean North Devon, but I am sure she is very nice about the people of North Dorset as well. The £1.57 billion culture recovery fund—of which we have already delivered more than £1 billion in support to various arts, heritage and performance organisations—has, to date, made 680 awards to music totalling more than £111 million.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
I did ask the Prime Minister about this last week, and he promised a meeting with me and the Conservative Chair of the Select Committee, and I was told I would hear from No. 10. I do not know if the Minister can shed any light on that.
I do want the Minister to realise that a lot of touring musicians are not there with a lot of tech support; they are actually individuals who are starting out or perhaps established but not with that level of support. In effect, this represents the research and development of an important industry, but they may just be travelling with a single instrument on a plane with some fans in Europe. I think the most important thing the Minister could do today—others have asked this—is to publish in full the details of the discussions between the EU and the UK on this, so that we can all see what the ambitious proposals were and why she finds them so objectionable.
Caroline Dinenage
I know the hon. Gentleman is a great champion for the music industry, and not a bad musical performer himself. He is absolutely right, and we do understand that, for those starting at the music industry, the ability to tour is vital to their career and their future prosperity. That is why the EU proposals—they did not support touring activity; they just supported ad hoc artist activity—would not have done it for so many of them, which is why we pushed for something so much better. We are very disappointed that the EU did not it see our way, but we will try to do everything we can to support them. I will speak to my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Home Office about publishing the information he has requested.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
As the Minister will be aware, South West Hertfordshire is home to many successful and established musicians. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the UK’s proposals in the negotiations were based on the views of the UK music industry and would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and Europe more easily, without the need for work permits?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. As I have said already, we worked very collaboratively with a whole range of stakeholders, including UK Music and the Musicians’ Union, to put forward proposals that were really based on the views of the musicians and the music industry about what they needed. It would have been mutually beneficial to the UK and the EU, and it would have allowed musicians—and, crucially, their support staff or their technicians—to travel and perform more easily, without the need for work permits.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I must be honest and say that I do welcome the fact that the door is still “open” to UK performers performing permit-free in the EU. Surely the danger is that concert promoters in the EU will simply take the easy option and go for a Dane or for a German performer, rather than the sheer hassle of British performers. There are also problems with the movement of musical instruments, which we know about. I have written to the DCMS just now, asking if we could please have a meeting between Ministers, me and musicians who are knowledgeable about this issue. At the end of the day, we have to try to sort it out, so I would be extremely grateful if the Minister agreed to such a meeting.
Caroline Dinenage
Absolutely. I am very happy to meet anybody on this, because it is really important that we continue regular engagement with the sector. We need to make sure that we have a very deep understanding of its needs and its questions in the light of these changes, which we know will pose a number of queries. Most recently, we held an EU exit explainer seminar with over 200 sector representative bodies in attendance, and the Secretary of State has a roundtable on Wednesday—tomorrow—with representatives from across the cultural and creative industries. We will keep doing those sorts of sessions all the time that people need and require them.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I have had quite a number of constituents contact me from Hyndburn and Haslingden highlighting their concerns on this, so can the Minister please reassure my constituents by outlining what the Department is doing to address it?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her local area and will be taking the concerns of her constituents incredibly seriously, as indeed do we. We understand that we need to work with all the music sector trade bodies to make sure that we give people access to the information they need as to the situations in all the individual nation states; they are all different, which is one of the most confusing things about this. We also need to make sure that we work with those individual nations as closely as we can, to ensure that any barriers that are in place are made as simple and easy to navigate as possible.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
In Putney, creative artists and support staff have already been damaged by the uncertainty around Brexit, on top of the covid effects that mean they are not able to tour. This failure of negotiations on a creative industry 90-day visa is letting down industry and the arts. Is the Minister really just going to sit back with her door open, or will she re-enter negotiations and be prepared for some give and take with individual countries to get that tailored deal that the creative industries really need?
Caroline Dinenage
I do not know what I have said during the course of today that could ever give the hon. Lady the viewpoint that I am just prepared to sit back and do nothing about this, or that I am happy with the way things have panned out; I voted for the trade agreement, but I presume so did she. We are not sitting there doing nothing. We are talking and will continue to talk to EU member states. They could of course unilaterally make things easier for travelling artists and musicians, but any changes they make would be likely to cover all visitors, not just those from the UK. The key thing we can do is to continue to talk to the sector and make sure that we put in place any support, information and guidance that it needs.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) [V]
I have been contacted by a number of constituents on this issue, notably the Furness Tradition group. Could my hon. Friend confirm that, despite some of the reporting in recent days, touring in the EU is still possible for UK artists and musicians, and that the Government are working towards a more formal arrangement with the EU?
Caroline Dinenage
Quite simply, of course touring is still encouraged. Artists and musicians from the EU are very welcome and encouraged to visit and perform in the UK, and absolutely vice versa. I am sure that individual member states have different restrictions when it comes to visas and work permits; some are very limited, some are a little bit more complicated. This is very much a quid pro quo—it works for the EU as much as it does for our musicians here in the UK—and I am sure that many countries want to come to an arrangement that will allow their musicians to move, travel, work and tour and to take their beautiful music around Europe.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister will agree that this is a double whammy for anyone who cares about levelling up and the creative industries in West Yorkshire and beyond. Recent figures show that the creative industries in West Yorkshire and the Humber have grown by 10.9%. It is really important for jobs and opportunities that we keep this industry flourishing, so will the Minister tell us what the Government have put in place to compensate for the inevitable loss of these opportunities, and will she make available what impact assessment has been done on the changes that this will make to the ability of businesses to continue to flourish after covid?
Caroline Dinenage
Of course we know that this has been such a horrible year, particularly for the sectors that I represent—the cultural and creative industries in west Yorkshire and around the whole UK. Covid has been a bitter blow. Of course we did not get the agreement with the EU that we wanted on touring musicians, but we want to do everything we can to support them, including providing clear, easy-to-access information and speaking to our colleagues in EU member states. We will also talk to our colleagues in the Treasury to see what financial support can be put in place at a future fiscal event.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
The Edinburgh Fringe is the largest arts festival in the world. I hope the Minister will be aware that this event and others like it have a vital role to play in developing new work and providing a springboard for artists who then subsequently tour that work. Does she therefore not understand that by refusing to maintain a visa exemption for artists, she is fatally undermining festivals in Scotland and the United Kingdom?
Caroline Dinenage
I am a massive fan of the Edinburgh Fringe and, in fact, of all the Edinburgh festivals. Last summer was the first in any since I can remember that I was not able to go to Edinburgh to see them at first hand and it was something that I missed greatly. Very recently, just before Christmas, I met representatives from across the Edinburgh festivals to talk about all the issues that they are facing, particularly with regard to coronavirus, but others as well. I should correct the hon. Gentleman. It was not for want of trying that we do not have this free movement of our musicians to be able to perform and to tour across the EU or, indeed, vice versa. We fought very hard for it. Our own arrangements with regard to visas and work permits mean that musicians and performers from outside the UK are very welcome to our shores.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) [V]
British bands and professional musicians represent a hugely successful cultural export for the UK. I know that the Minister recognises that and I know that she understands the importance of international touring in that success, but may I ask her what more she can do on a bilateral basis with her counterparts in EU member states to find specific solutions to the problems that we are discussing today and ensure that touring remains as easy as possible for our world-leading musicians?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Of course, as I have said, the door is open and I would love to be able to change this across the board straight away, but that will not be possible in the immediate or foreseeable future. It is all about having those bilateral conversations with colleagues in EU member states. At this stage, it would not be about a waiver but about facilitation and what we can do to make the situation as easy and as straightforward as possible and, of course, those are the conversations that we will be having.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Van Morrison penned the protest song “We Are Born to be Free”, but it appears that musicians like him and others are now completely caught up in a red tape trap and are not free at all. Can the Minister clarify the situation with regard to carnets for musicians and instruments travelling from GB to Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland back to GB? Can she confirm that they are definitely not required within the UK? However, once a person gets to Northern Ireland, will they be required to travel south, or will the common arrangements that we have with the Republic of Ireland still be in place? Once south, can a person then onward travel without a carnet to the rest of Europe? Can we have clarity on those issues?
Caroline Dinenage
Van Morrison also penned “Brown Eyed Girl”, which is my own personal anthem. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Artists and organisations based in Northern Ireland will not be required to obtain ATA carnets or musical instrument certificates when touring in the EU because the Northern Ireland protocol means that Northern Ireland is part of the same regulatory environment for goods as the European Union. Northern Ireland citizens who do not hold Irish citizenship as well will be subject to the same changes as other British citizens on mobility and business travel when going to EU member states, but, of course, not to the Republic of Ireland.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
A number of my constituents in the entertainments, arts and creative industries have contacted me setting out the impacts that the new immigration restrictions will have on their livelihoods. It is clear that the UK Government strived to gain a mutually beneficial agreement with the EU. Will the Minister therefore set out what steps the Government are taking to continue to urge the EU to return to the negotiating table and reopen discussions to reach a more preferable agreement for all parties? May I take this opportunity on behalf of my constituents to ask the EU to reconsider its position?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The negotiating team did negotiate an opportunity to come back and review this in the years ahead, so the light at the end of the tunnel is not entirely switched off. But there is quite a lot we can do between European nation states to try to make things a lot easier and straightforward. She is right to highlight that this impacts EU artists as much as it does those from the UK. We want to make their lives as easy and as straightforward as possible.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
As well as issues with visas or work permits, UK musicians working in EU countries risk being double-charged their social security contributions if they work in a country that has opted out of the social security co-ordination under the detached worker rules. Can the Minister set out what the Government are doing to avoid that and ensure that UK musicians do not face that financial penalty while they are working in the EU?
Caroline Dinenage
I am really pleased that the hon. Lady has given me the opportunity to answer that question. The protocol on social security co-ordination secured in the agreement ensures that UK nationals and EU citizens have a range of social security cover when working and living in the EU and the UK. It also supports business and trade by ensuring that cross-border workers and their employers are only liable to pay social security contributions in one state at a time. That is, obviously, very beneficial in particular to smaller cultural organisations that may not have the required cash flow to finance any duplicate payments. Member states have until 31 January to sign up to the detached worker provision. The UK continues to engage with our European counterparts via our global and international stakeholder network to encourage countries to sign up to that provision ahead of the deadline.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
There is clearly no substitute for live music and during the covid pandemic opportunities have been severely depressed. In addition to having discussions on how we might ensure musicians can travel within the European Union and within the UK, can my hon. Friend update the House on what discussions she has had with TV companies to allow emerging musicians in particular the opportunity to have their music recorded and broadcast in parts of the European Union?
Caroline Dinenage
As ever, an ingenious question from my hon. Friend. I know that so many of our brilliant cultural organisations have worked really hard to improve their digital offer, particularly over the various lockdowns. Earlier in the year, I visited the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra and saw the amazing work it is doing to bring its beautiful music to audiences around the world because of the investment it has made in that capacity. He has hit on a really strong concept. I will discuss it with my dear colleague, the Minister for Media and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
The Minister may not be aware of this, but the world-renowned Cory Band from Rhondda Cynon Taff are the current European brass band champions. To travel through Europe to defend their hard-fought-for title, and to visit the concerts and workshops, each member of the band will now require a visa and a work permit, despite them being an amateur organisation. This will undoubtedly add an additional financial and administrative burden that could be avoided. What discussions has the Minister had to ensure that brass bands from across the UK can continue to fly the flag for us in Europe without this bureaucracy?
Caroline Dinenage
I was not aware of the hon. Lady’s band and I wish them the very best of luck in their endeavours to defend their fantastic title. If the tour they are going on is not paid by the individual venues they are visiting, there may not be an issue here. The band would have to discuss that with individual member states to get clarity on that, but I am very happy to speak to her further about it.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
It is clear that this issue gets to the core of our inextricable cultural links with our European partners. It is good to see the Minister stressing the urgency of securing bilateral agreements and ensuring that current arrangements are simplified for people. May I make a special request that she bears in mind individual musicians, many of whom carry multiple instruments, in her efforts to simplify the current arrangements?
Caroline Dinenage
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are so many facets to this issue that we need to keep in mind as we move forward. That is certainly something that I am very happy to talk to him further about.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
I have been contacted by a number of constituents—not just musicians, but actors, dancers, choreographers and puppeteers—about the Government’s failure to secure visa-free work permits for touring artists in the EU. This comes as a further hammer blow to their livelihoods, with the continued shutdown of live entertainment as well as the huge gaps in the Government’s support for many working in these industries. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituents, particularly students such as Fresca David, who is just starting out on her career, that they are not being treated as an afterthought by this Government?
Caroline Dinenage
My message to the hon. Lady’s constituent would be that the Government entirely recognise the vital importance of the UK’s thriving creative artists. We want to support them in every way we can. I am just so pleased that there was not a Liberal Democrat Government, who would have voted for no deal.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
This is a really serious issue and Scottish musicians will undoubtedly be affected. Does my hon. Friend agree that, instead of simply masquerading as a serious party of Government, the Scottish National party should start acting like one, cease these politically charged, ill-informed, deliberately misleading games—an example of which we have seen today—that do nothing to help the situation, work with us and support us in attempting to find a mutually agreeable solution, support Scottish musicians who have been let down by the EU’s decision not to accept our compromise proposals, and work to get an agreement over visa arrangements?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. What we need to do now is to move forward. We need to come forward with sensible proactive solutions for the UK music sector. The industry itself has said that what we need now is clarity, not recriminations. That is what we are working to provide and we very much appreciate support from across the House for us to do that.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]
My Belvidere constituent, Louise McLean, is just one of the many people connected to the music industry who can see that live performers are just the latest casualty in a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. Last year, as Culture Minister, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), said:
“It is essential that free movement is protected for artists post 2020.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 56WH.]
Does the hon. Lady agree with her ministerial colleague? Why was that view ignored in Government, if it is also the view of the music industry?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, absolutely, I agree with the comments of my predecessor. That is why we put to the EU fantastic proposals, which were based on the views of the music industry, would have been mutually beneficial and allowed musicians and support staff to tour. We are very disappointed that the EU did not see it the same way.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend mention technicians—the sound and lighting engineers who make touring possible. When she is looking for a solution, which I know she is doing, will she also include companies such as Beat the Street in Romsey, which provides the tour buses that make it possible for artists to travel Europe? It will spell a death knell for the entire industry if they are not able to access the continent.
Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is such a great champion for businesses in her local area, particularly those that have been so badly affected, not just by covid, but by the very disappointing EU refusal to accept our very reasonable propositions. She will know that the sector has benefited from a range of different support measures over the last year that were put in place because of covid, but we do need to support it moving forward. The EU’s proposal would not have worked because it would not have supported the valuable support workers in my right hon. Friend’s constituency to do their work. Quite simply, without them, touring would not be possible.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
The Minister and Conservative MPs keep claiming that they made this fantastic offer, but we cannot test that because they have not published it. The EU has. It is there in black and white on page 171 of the draft agreement from March last year, allowing 90-day visa-free touring by British musicians and other cultural activities. Will the Minister publish the Government’s proposal, so we can see where the truth lies?
Caroline Dinenage
I have to correct the right hon. Gentleman. The document does not say 90 days visa-free touring by UK musicians; it is a lot more opaque than that, which is why we could not simply sign up to it. It just would not have delivered what we needed for our musicians, and it flew in the face of what the British public voted for in the case of controlling our borders. As I have already said, I will speak to colleagues across BEIS and the Home Office to see what further details on the negotiations we can publish.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
As you know, Mr Speaker, the north of England has helped to form and then exported some of the biggest musicians and bands across the world in recent decades. Touring is not a “nice to have”; it is an absolute financial necessity for musicians from both the UK and the EU. Can the Minister confirm that it was the UK Government who pushed for a more ambitious agreement with the EU on temporary movement of business travellers, and that it was the EU that unreasonably rejected this proposal?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my hon. Friend for putting it so simply and succinctly; that is exactly what happened. The proposals that we put forward would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily, and they were rejected by the EU.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
I have been listening to the Minister’s replies, and it is always somebody else’s fault with this Government, isn’t it? Our world-class events and production companies, such as Adlib in my constituency, tour the EU with UK and US-based musicians, but very few EU-based companies tour the UK. Does not the Minister realise that her giving up on agreeing comprehensive arrangements to enable this to continue could destroy a sector that has huge export success and destroy the jobs and livelihoods of the technicians, who are already struggling because of the pandemic restrictions to their trade?
Caroline Dinenage
Of course I recognise that this is not the solution that we would have wanted, and it is not the solution that we fought really hard for. I point out to the hon. Lady that the Labour party voted for this deal in the full knowledge of what it involved, including the end to freedom of movement.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
From The Horns to the Colosseum to the Palace Theatre, music literally beats at the heart of my constituency of Watford. That means that we have many amazing musicians. They are asking me whether my hon. Friend can confirm that it was not the UK that ended these visas, and what measures are going forward to support this amazing sector?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is such a vibrant champion, and not just for the music industry in his constituency; we have also spoken about the film industry. I expect him at any moment to be descending from the ceiling on a wire in the next “Mission Impossible” movie. He does it all with great panache, and that is exactly what we want to do. The cultural recovery fund has been about supporting music venues so that musicians can get back to doing what they love. Arts Council England is there to support them. We will look at every opportunity we have to put in place more of that vital encouragement and support.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Professor Paul Carr of the University of South Wales reports that in 2019 music tourism alone generated a spend of £124 million in Wales, supporting 1,754 jobs. The Government’s failure to secure visa-free travel is a huge blow, especially to young people at a tipping point in their creative careers. In particular, it will diminish the strong international quality of our national culture. What assessment has the Minister made of the long-term impact of this wholly avoidable mess, specifically on the cultural industry in Wales?
Caroline Dinenage
We know that there will be obstacles in the immediate period for those who want to travel and tour abroad, but I am sure that that will change once we enable people to access the information they need and they can see what the situation is with all the different member states, because they all vary wildly. In Wales in particular, musicians are dedicated, vibrant, resourceful and practical, and I know that they will overcome any bumps in the road to be able to do what they do so brilliantly and to continue to share it with our European neighbours.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for providing the opportunity to help the Minister correct the misleading social media chatter among professional musicians and other performance artists, and from Opposition Members, about exactly where the responsibility lies for this situation. Will she confirm my impression that the European Union negotiators appear to have rather cynically used and abused the interests of its musicians and its music fans to undermine the United Kingdom Government’s commitment to its own citizens around regaining control of our borders? However ungrateful and ungracious the Musicians’ Union has been in regard to my hon. Friend’s efforts—
Mr Speaker
Order. I call the Minister, please. That was far too long a question.
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is right that we did fight very hard for this. We understand this not just for performers from the UK, but—he is absolutely right—for performers from the EU as well, because the UK music scene is, I would say, the best in the world, and putting any obstacles or tests in the way of EU performers coming here is a very difficult position for them as well. We are a lot more forthcoming: we do not put in place work permits, and we have a lot more sensitive approaches to visas for performers coming across from the EU. It would have been lovely for that to have been the situation right across all EU member states as well.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Similar to many families in my constituency, artists have been pointing out that many bands comprise a mixture of EU and UK nationals. Does the Minister not see the impossible situation that they will now face, with different members being faced with different levels of bureaucracy and red tape wherever they tour?
Caroline Dinenage
Absolutely; I understand the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that this causes a problem for bands, in particular, or orchestras who have members from all different EU member states. The guidance is that we all have to seek instructions from each member state on how we proceed, but had the EU accepted our suggestions in the first place, we would not be in this position.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) [V]
I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that our world-leading artists and musicians are not just important to the UK economically, but vital to our country’s culture and soft power. The arts play an important role in my constituency, where we have the Leopallooza festival and the Rock Oyster festival, attracting hundreds of talented artists and performers. Given that, I was disappointed to hear of the EU’s rejection of the UK’s visa-free travel offer. Will she commit to doing what she can to secure access to EU countries for UK artists and musicians and keep negotiating to try to encourage the EU to show some flexibility, for the sake of my constituents?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, of course, we will keep that negotiation open and try to make things as simple and as painless as possible. Our door remains open if the EU wants to come back and look at this again. Where visas apply, our agreement with the EU does contain measures that will help to ensure that processes are as prompt and smooth as possible, and we will work to exploit those as much as we can.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
This morning, the UK music industry told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that despite being 1% of the world’s population, the UK produces 10% of its music. This industry has been one of the fastest growing over the last 10 years. It employs 2 million people, with the potential to create 1 million jobs in the next 10 years, so I am incredulous that the Government have got us into this situation. Will the Minister say when she will start the negotiations on a supplementary agreement so that we can sort this mess out?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is right to say how incredibly successful our music industry is around the world, and that is why we fought so hard to get much better arrangements in the agreement. What we need to do now is ensure that our sectors are prepared to face any challenges in the future, which is why we are continuing those dialogues with them to understand the ongoing impacts and challenges that may be faced. We need to ensure that they have the right support at the right time and do everything we can to work with other member states to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
In addition to trying to improve visa-free travel for musicians, could my hon. Friend say whether the Government hope to progress on easing the movement of musical equipment from country to country within Europe, so that it is not treated like any other physical goods, and on easing the cabotage restrictions for festivals and bands? Finally, can she confirm whether EU-based music showcases fall under the short business trip exemption for conferences, trade fairs and exhibitions? These showcases are often so important in making the careers of developing talent.
Caroline Dinenage
With regard to the haulage—the cabotage—that has not been imposed just on us because we have left the EU. They are rules that apply to both UK and EU haulage firms. I want to speak more about this with colleagues in the Department for Transport and with European colleagues to see what more can be done to address it. It impacts not just us but companies that are moving musical equipment across Europe, no matter which European member state they come from. As for my hon. Friend’s other question, if performers are visiting in a business capacity, that is to negotiate a future tour, for any other scoping arrangements or for various other things, that would fall under the business visa waiver. It is always really important to check the individual rules of that EU nation—that member state—to ensure that they do not have anything that would need to be abided by.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Is it not the case that the longer the situation persists, the worse it gets—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is my fault, but I missed out Mary Kelly Foy. I beg the House’s pardon and that of the hon. Gentleman. Mary Kelly Foy.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we can all agree that no competent Government would accept such a significant loss of revenue for an already struggling sector without a plan B to mitigate the economic impact. Can the Minister tell me what plan is in place to make up for the financial shortfall for the creative industries resulting from the Government’s failure to negotiate visa exemptions with the European Union?
Caroline Dinenage
I just want to make sure that the hon. Lady is not labouring under any misapprehension that the EU made a bespoke offer on musicians that we turned down. That simply is not the case. We fought very hard to get a solution that would have worked to the benefit of our musicians and those from the EU. As ever, we want to ensure that our music industry is supported. We supported it with the cultural recovery fund, and Arts Council England has a range of grants and financial support on offer. On this particular issue, we will speak to colleagues in the Treasury to see whether any support can be put forward at a future fiscal event.
Steve Brine
Surely the longer this situation persists the worse it gets for UK artists, and the longer their recovery from covid becomes. Right now, musicians, agents and those who book for them have way too much risk in fixing European gigs. It is no good Opposition Members who voted for no deal joining the debate now. We have the deal, but surely we need to return to it with the sensible UK proposal that was on the table, which presumably, as the Minister has said today, still stands.
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend has just hit the nail on the head, and does so in a much more articulate way than I could. That is absolutely right: the deal is still on the table and our door is open for the EU to come back and take up that deal if it wants to. In the short term, we are speaking to member states bilaterally about the visa regime and whether there is any facilitation, as opposed to a waiver, that could be put in place. What the sector now needs is certainty and for us to be able to put in place the guidance and support for it to move forward.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
The Minister acknowledged that this situation is deeply unsatisfactory, and so too have the many MPs who have signed my early-day motion highlighting this crisis for touring artists. Today she committed her Department to preparing the creative sector for this new regime. Can she assure the House that this will be better than the way that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs helped to prepare fishermen and farmers, which was to throw them off the bureaucratic cliff? Is she not worried that this wanton and wholly avoidable impediment to the fraternal sharing of arts and culture exposes a rather narrow and isolationist vision of the future by this UK Government?
Caroline Dinenage
The key is ensuring that we put in place the guidance and support that the sector needs to be able to deal with the new changes. We are talking collaboratively with the sector about that at the moment, and we will be putting in place opportunities for people to learn much more about how things stand and where they need to go to access advice and support. Those are the practical things that we can talk about right now to help our sector move forward and continue to be the vibrant ambassador for the UK and the hugely brilliant cultural sector that it has always been.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) [V]
A single European tour may visit dozens of venues, employing hundreds of people skilled in everything from logistics to finance, lighting, pyrotechnics, costumes and more to make it a success. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give people like Aberconwy resident and experienced front-of-house engineer Berenice Hardman that practical arrangements such as visas, carnets and cabotage will be easier and simpler for them to deal with in the future?
Caroline Dinenage
The assurance I would give my hon. Friend’s constituent is that we will be having conversations with colleagues across all the nation states of the EU to see what measures we can put in place to facilitate the arrangements. Some of them have very straightforward arrangements right now—some of them do not impose extra work permits, and some are very flexible when it comes to their visas, and others less so. We need to speak to them to ensure that these arrangements can be as smooth, fast and easy to understand as possible, and that is the key to us being able to move forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There being almost nobody present in the Chamber, I am not going to suspend before we go on to the next item of business, so we will move straight to the ten-minute rule motion.
Freedom of Speech (Universities)
Tuesday 19th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech; to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty; and for connected purposes.
I commend your efficiency, Madam Deputy Speaker. The principal reason that our kingdom is a great nation can be encompassed in one word: freedom—freedom of action, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of speech and freedom under the law. Of all those freedoms, the most precious is freedom of speech. It has been fundamental to the development of our culture, our society, our literature, our science and our economy. Indeed, our national wealth today owes more to the free exchange of ideas than to the exchange of goods. Freedom of speech is fundamental to everything we have, everything we are and everything we stand for.
Over 300 years ago, it was this Parliament that enshrined our right to freedom of speech in law. The 1689 Bill of Rights became a symbol of hope for the rights of people everywhere throughout the globe. Since then, peoples and democracies the world over have followed our example. When representatives of the globe gathered in 1948, in the aftermath of unthinkable destruction and despair, we as one people—one human race—said, “Never again.” Fundamental to this united course of humanity was article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Today that is under threat, and it is under threat in the very institutions where it should be most treasured: our universities.
Freedom of speech only matters when it is controversial —when it is challenging. That is why the greatest characterisation of free speech is attributed to Voltaire by his biographer, who said:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
In one version, it was notably:
“I may detest what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”
Voltaire understood that creativity and progress in a society depend on acts of intellectual rebellion, dissent, disagreement and controversy, no matter how uncomfortable, but today the cancel culture movement think it is reasonable to obliterate the views of people they disagree with, rather than challenge them in open debate. They are wrong. Why? Because the unwillingness to hear uncomfortable opinion and the refusal of platforms to people they disagree with is damaging to us all. Imagine if their censorious predecessors in the established Churches had been successful in their attempts to supress Galileo and Darwin. People would still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe or that the human species was created on the sixth day from clay. Of course, those ideas are ridiculous, but such falsehoods were conquered only through the freedom to speak truth to power and to shine light in the dark with the ability to advocate for science and reason.
Today, there is a corrosive trend in our universities that aims to prevent anybody from airing ideas that groups disagree with or would be offended by. Let us be clear: it is not about protecting delicate sensibilities from offence; it is about censorship. We can protect our own sensibilities by not going to the speech. After all, nobody is compelled to listen. But when people explicitly or indirectly no-platform Amber Rudd, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, Peter Hitchens and others, they are not protecting themselves; they are denying others the right to hear those people and even, perhaps, challenge what they say.
Let us repeat our thought experiment—our conjecture —in a modern context. Germaine Greer wrote the pivotal book on feminism and was its most powerful and effective advocate. Peter Tatchell was and is an unbelievably brave and very effective campaigner on gay rights and a host of civil freedoms. Peter Hitchens is a professional iconoclast who has challenged overmighty Government of all colours through the decades. Imagine what would have happened if they and their allies had been prevented from pursuing their causes in the public domain. We would have a very different society today, and not a better one. The chilling effect on free speech would be disastrous, and the impact on academic freedom would be catastrophic. Its cost is already too high.
Before I leave this subject, what about Amber Rudd? She was no-platformed for her connection to the Government’s handling of the Windrush scandal, yet it was a whole year after she had been explicitly cleared by an investigation that found that she had not been supported as she should have been by the Home Office. In her case, it was not just speech denied but justice denied.
Today, views expressed in a recent survey commissioned by Britain’s biggest university academic union showed that Britain has the second-lowest level of academic freedom in all Europe. Just last month, a report by Civitas found that more than a third of our universities impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech—including, I am ashamed to say, Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews. The fact is that a number of our international allies today protect freedom of speech much better than we do. Some have it specifically written into their country’s constitution, and others put it explicitly into law. Ireland, for example, has the Universities Act 1997, which protects
“the freedom, within the law, in…teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the university, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions”.
Although in the UK we theoretically have laws protecting freedom of speech, in practice they are buried in education Acts, resulting in the protections not being widely known and universities not always upholding their duties. That is why I am proposing this Bill.
What does this Bill set out to do? It would, in effect, make universities responsible for upholding free speech throughout their campuses. Freedom of speech is not, of course, absolute. With rights come responsibilities, so speech that is illegal—incitement to violence, for example—would of course be forbidden, but speech that is merely unpopular with any sector of the university would not be proscribed. Controversial views and the challenging of established positions would not be proscribed.
Although we may not agree or approve of what is being said, the right to free speech is the foundation stone of our democracy. To stand idly by while that foundation is being eroded, is a dereliction of our duty. The Bill makes it the absolute duty of every university authority to protect that most fundamental of our freedoms: the right to free speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr David Davis, Robert Halfon, Esther McVey, Chris Green, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Ben Bradley, James Grundy, Andrew Lewer, Craig Mackinlay, James Sunderland, Lee Anderson and Philip Davies present the Bill.
Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 240).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to prepare the Chamber for the next item of business, we will now suspend the sitting for three minutes.
Trade Bill
Tuesday 19th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 January 2021 - (19 Jan 2021)
17:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 353 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:06 - divided: - Ayes: 365 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 364 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 357 / Noes: 266 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 364 / Noes: 266 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 353 / Noes: 270 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:08 - divided: - Ayes: 355 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 357 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 11. If the Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 2
Parliamentary approval of trade agreements
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 9, and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
Lords amendment 10, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 11 to 31.
Greg Hands
This Bill marks a significant milestone. Its passage into law will have numerous benefits for the UK economy: giving certainty to business with regard to our continuity trade agreements; confirming the UK’s access to the global procurement markets; providing protection to businesses and consumers from unfair trading practices; and ensuring that we have the appropriate data to support our exporters and importers. This Bill has enjoyed rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, having been through many of its parliamentary stages twice, and I am delighted to finally see it reach this stage. I am sure it will soon be passed into law, to the satisfaction of all.
I will speak to each amendment in turn, beginning with Lords amendment 1, which is in the name of Liberal Democrat peer Lord Purvis. With our new-found freedom, it is right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise effectively the UK Government’s ambitious free trade agreement programme. However, Lords amendment 1 goes far beyond what would be appropriate for our unique constitutional make-up and would unduly tie the hands of Government to negotiate in the best interests of the UK. The Government have listened to the concerns of both Houses throughout the passage of this Bill and have moved significantly to improve further its enhanced transparency and scrutiny arrangements.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend said that the amendment would go too far. In the European Parliament the power existed for MEPs to give consent to trade Bills. Now that power has come back to this country, is he suggesting that this should not go to MPs but should go to the Executive? I think that is what he is suggesting.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he has taken a long-standing interest, during the passage of this Bill and its predecessor, in these questions, and I will make two points. First, it would be inappropriate to compare this Westminster-style of democracy with the European Parliament and the European Commission. Secondly, all the trade agreements in scope within the continuity provisions of the Bill have already been scrutinised in this House. These arrangements were set out in a written ministerial statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade on 7 December. The enhanced arrangements that we have set out are entirely appropriate for a Westminster-style democracy such as ourselves; they are at least as strong as, and in some cases are stronger than, those in comparable systems, such as those in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Greg Hands
I am going to make a bit more progress.
Finally, I remind the House that ultimately if Parliament is not content with a trade deal that we have negotiated, it has statutory powers, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, to prevent ratification by resolving against ratification indefinitely. That is in addition to Parliament’s power to vote down any necessary implementing legislation, again thereby preventing ratification.
That brings me on to Lords amendment 5. I suggest to the House that this amendment is unnecessary, as it covers things that the Government are already doing, or that are established precedent of the UK as a dualist state. The Government are already under a statutory obligation to publish an explanatory memorandum when a treaty is laid before Parliament. As Members will have seen, in section 5 of our explanatory memorandum to our agreement with Japan, we set out how we would implement the agreement and where legislation would be required. We, as a dualist state, have well established precedents for putting in place implementing legislation place before ratification of a treaty. If we did not do so, we would risk the UK being in breach of its international obligations. We have no desire to change this established way of working.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
One of the complaints of the International Trade Committee, on which I sit, was that there was not enough time to debate the report that the Committee put forward on the Japanese trade deal. Will my right hon. Friend perhaps look at offering extra parliamentary time—I know it is perhaps not in his purview—for Parliament to have such debates? They could be followed up with debates on the general trade agreement that has been agreed by the Government at the time.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. The whole purpose of providing the relevant Select Committee with the relevant text in advance is so that the Select Committee can produce a report that will inform debate in Parliament. In that sense, I agree with him. On his specific point about making time available to the Select Committee to debate that report, I think that question is properly within the domain of Parliament, rather than the Government. I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that allowing time for a parliamentary Select Committee to debate a report is best done through the usual channels, in conjunction with the Speaker’s Office. I do not think it is entirely within the gift of the Government to allocate time to a parliamentary Select Committee.
Greg Hands
No, I am going to move on, because I want to come on to what I think might be the areas of greatest interest in this debate, including Lords amendments 2 and 3 on human rights. I remind hon. and right hon. Members of the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Tuesday last week, in which he outlined a range of measures in response to the deplorable human rights situation in Xinjiang. I also refer colleagues to the article I wrote about Xinjiang as long ago as 2011, showing my personal interest in that question.
I recognise that the amendments before the House are not specific to China per se, but some of the supporters have China in mind, and it is worth reminding Members of what the new measures the Foreign Secretary announced will do, as they are germane to the ongoing debate on human rights. The measures will help to ensure that UK businesses and the public sector are in no way complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang. They include: first, strengthening the overseas business risk guidance to make clearer the risk to UK businesses investing in, or with supply chains in, Xinjiang; secondly, a review of export controls as they apply to the situation in Xinjiang to ensure we are doing all we can to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights violations in Xinjiang; thirdly, the introduction of financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply with the Modern Slavery Act 2015; and, fourthly, ensuring that the Government or public sector bodies have the evidence they require to help them exclude suppliers that are complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I understand the point my right hon. Friend is making, and we do not have a free trade deal with China at the moment, and we are not likely to, but many of us for years have been frustrated that every time we try to raise genocide in this place in terms of trade deals, we are told that it is subject to the international courts, and that China, Russia or other countries in the UN Security Council have a veto on the matter. Is there any way we can acknowledge that genocide is taking place in a country when we do a trade deal, without losing parliamentary control of our trade deals, and without getting trade deals bogged down for months or even years in courts?
Greg Hands
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government are very ready to have these discussions. I am sure that the amendment in the name of Lord Alton is not an appropriate amendment to put into this Bill. As my right hon. Friend will have seen from the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, we do take the situation in Xinjiang, and other allegations of serious human rights abuses, extremely seriously. However, we also have to think about what we are dealing with—the appropriate role for the High Court in international treaties, and particularly the right in the Alton amendment for an automatic revocation of an international treaty.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for presenting what the Foreign Office is doing on human rights. We have tabled a compromise amendment that takes into account all the concerns that the Government have expressed about the Lord Alton amendment, and that makes very clear the separation of powers—fundamentally, that Parliaments advise, and Ministers decide. What is his objection to the compromise amendment tabled by me and my colleagues?
Greg Hands
I will have to look at my hon. Friend’s amendment. My role is to speak about the amendment from the other place in the name of Lord Alton.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I gave the amendment to the Foreign Secretary and his team last Wednesday, and it is on the amendment paper today. With respect, is not a case of, “We can have a look at it”; the Minister must have a view on it, surely, because it is there on the paper.
Greg Hands
I note what my right hon. Friend says. The Government are open to further discussion on these matters. Nobody denies the importance and seriousness of the situation in Xinjiang, nor this Government’s continued commitment to combating human rights abuses, or that human rights cannot and should not be traded away in a trade agreement or anything like it.
I should emphasise to hon. Members the seriousness with which the Government approach human rights issues as they relate to trade. We are taking action and will continue to do so. The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally. We are clear that doing more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. In fact, as I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends will agree, there is a strong positive correlation between countries that trade freely and human rights.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I think we all appreciate the work that the Foreign Secretary has done to ensure that firms look at their supply lines to check that they are not purchasing goods produced through slave labour or through human rights abuses. Now that the United Kingdom is out of the EU, we want to stand on the world stage as a global leader. What objections does the Minister have to putting in the law of this country that we will not tolerate trade deals with countries that abuse their population by engaging in genocide?
Greg Hands
I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is passionate about these issues, the importance attached by the Government to the underlying issue of allegations of genocide and human rights abuses. However, it is right that the Government give significant attention to how that process would work. The Lord Alton amendment, which allows automatic revocation by the High Court of an international trade agreement that was negotiated between Governments and approved by Parliament, would not be the right way forward.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 pose significant legal and other problems and so cannot be accepted by the Government. Lords amendment 3, tabled by Lord Alton, seeks to revoke trade agreements where the High Court of England and Wales makes a preliminary determination regarding genocide. This would, in effect, take out of the hands of Government their prerogative powers to conduct international relations with regard to trade. That goes to the heart of the separation of powers in Britain’s constitutional system. If we accepted the amendment, the High Court could frustrate or even revoke trade agreements entered into by the Government and approved after Parliamentary scrutiny. That would be an unprecedented and unacceptable erosion of the royal prerogative, and not something that the Government could support.
Greg Hands
I will make a little more progress, if I may.
It is for the Government, answerable to Parliament, to make trade policy, not the courts. In any event, the Government already have the power to terminate trade agreements. Modern trade agreements include termination provisions as standard, allowing either party to terminate the agreement if they so decide, usually following a specified notice period. The option of terminating agreements would remain available to the Government to use at their discretion, with or without the amendment.
It is crucial to understand that we do not have a bilateral trade agreement with China. There is no trade deal with China to revoke. Not a single person in Xinjiang—the people we are trying to help—would benefit from the amendment.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am listening to the Minister carefully. He is right that, of course, we do not have a trade deal with China to alter. If we did, given the situation with the Uyghurs and the genocide going on, would the Government be minded to implement their power to revoke such an agreement?
Greg Hands
Obviously that is something the Government would have to look at. We would have to consult across Government, and there would also be, quite properly, a significant role for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in that decision. But it is clear that we do not have a bilateral trade agreement with China that is within the scope of the Bill. We have no plans for a bilateral trade agreement with China. The amendment could have an impact on bilateral trade agreements that the United Kingdom is party to, but China is not a party relevant to the consideration.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
As my right hon. Friend knows, I admire him enormously, but I want to take him back to that point. He said he has no plans for a trade deal with China, but what that really means is that we may yet make up our mind to have one, so that is not an absolute statement. If he decides that the British Government will never do with a trade deal with a country guilty of genocide, how would he know whether a country was guilty of genocide, if only a court can decide that and the International Criminal Court cannot reach that decision? Surely the amendment would give him a chance to say, “Our High Court has said this country is guilty of genocide.”
Greg Hands
I am very interested in this topic, but it is not for me as Minister for Trade Policy to make Government policy on which court would be involved, or where that court should be, or on aspects relating to genocide. However, I think the amendment before us is flawed and should be rejected by this House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Greg Hands
No. The right hon. Lady will have plenty of opportunity to speak, and I can respond to her points in due course.
The lack of evidence for the effectiveness of such action underscores the need for the Government to take targeted, appropriate and effective measures on human rights, such as those we are taking towards China in the package of measures announced by the Foreign Secretary.
Lords amendment 2 seeks, among other things, the publication of risk assessments, annual reports and determinations on whether trade agreements comply with the UK’s international obligations. Such legislative requirements would again represent serious constraints on the royal prerogative powers to negotiate, ratify and withdraw from treaties. Erosion of the royal prerogative is a red line for the Government, so we cannot support that amendment, either.
I need to make a little more progress, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am conscious that we are 18 minutes in and there are a lot of speakers. I turn to Lords amendment 4, which would introduce a wide range of restrictions on the regulations that can be made under clause 2. Those relate broadly to the delivery of free, universal health services, the protection of medical data and scrutiny of algorithms, and a prohibition on the use of investor-state dispute settlement, ratchet clauses and negative listing provisions.
Greg Hands
I am going to make a little bit more progress, with apologies to the right hon. Gentleman. He obviously has a special interest in this space, but I am conscious that time is moving on.
Turning to the amendments concerning the Trade and Agriculture Commission, the Government have offered alternatives to Lords amendments 9 and 10. We also accept Lords amendments 11, 12, 29 and 30. These amendments put the commission on a statutory footing to help to inform the report required by section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020. The Trade and Agriculture Commission was originally set up by the Department for International Trade in July 2020 to boost the scrutiny of trade deals. That is alongside other steps that the Government have taken to ensure that relevant interests are taken into account at every step of the negotiation process, from public consultation at the start, dedicated trade advisory groups during the process and independent scrutiny of the final deal at the end.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission will advise the Secretary of State for International Trade on certain measures set out in section 42 of the Agriculture Act concerning the consistency of certain free trade agreement measures with UK statutory protections for animal and plant health, animal welfare and the environment. The Government amendments were modified in the other place, however, also to include advice on human health. The Government do not consider the inclusion of human health to be appropriate for the Trade and Agriculture Commission, as it would duplicate the work of other appropriate bodies. Just because human health will not be in the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission does not mean that there will be no scrutiny in that area. It must still be covered in the section 42 report under the Agriculture Act, for which the Secretary of State may seek advice from any person considered to be independent and to have relevant expertise.
I hope that that has been a useful introduction to the Lords amendments we have in front of us. I am looking forward to the debate and to responding later.
Emily Thornberry
It is a pleasure to open this debate for the Opposition. I want to thank Members from the other place for all the work they have done on these amendments, which follows the considerable amount of work on the Bill’s previous iteration, all of which is welcome.
It is a great tribute to how deeply Members on all sides and in both Houses have engaged in our debates about trade over the last few years that we have such a wide range of important amendments before us today. They reflect the values, priorities and safeguards that we believe the UK should apply when negotiating new trade agreements. We have one amendment that reflects our desire that young boys and girls growing up in this country should be able to learn, play and interact with their friends online without the fear that those experiences will be tainted by bullying, grooming or exposure to harmful content. We have another amendment that reflects our equally strong desire that young boys and girls growing up 4,000 miles away should be able to live in freedom, practise any religion they choose and one day have children of their own without the fear that those rights will be taken away by the criminal actions of the Chinese state. I want to focus most of my remarks today on the amendments relating to human rights and to parliamentary scrutiny, but let me first talk briefly about the other key amendments we have before us.
We welcome Lords amendment 4, which seeks to exclude NHS patient data from the scope of future trade deals. This amendment cuts to the chase of the debate over whether the NHS is on the table when it comes to trade negotiations. To some people, that concept would mean private healthcare companies from overseas being able to compete against the NHS to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare, but in fact it is much more realistic and pernicious. What it means is those same companies winning a greater right to provide services to the NHS through open procurement contracts and thereby gaining access to the vast resource of NHS patient data, which, quite frankly, they have been actively pursuing for years. This amendment seeks to prevent that, and I cannot see why any Member of the House would disagree with it.
We welcome Lords amendments 6 on standards affected by international trade agreements, which rests on the very simple notion that the international trade agreements we negotiate should not undermine the domestic standards we apply on everything from environmental protection to employment rights—again, something we would have thought everyone would support.
I have spoken already about Lords amendment 7 on the protection of children online, which seeks to protect the very welcome progress we are making in the UK to keep our children safe when using the internet, and to force major service providers to help prevent children from exposure to illegal content or harmful activity. We know for a fact that the major US internet companies have sought to use trade deals with Mexico, Canada, Japan and Korea to exempt themselves from liability over the harms caused by their services and to guarantee unrestricted access to user data, including that of children. The Minister might well assure us that the same thing will not happen here, but I would simply urge him to allow the passage of this amendment to ensure that the same thing cannot happen here.
We also welcome Lords amendment 8, the Northern Ireland amendment, on non-discrimination in goods and services, for which we thank my good friend the former right hon. Member for Neath—a much missed presence in this House, but still a good friend to the people of Northern Ireland. When we look at the delays, disruption and economic damage that has been caused by the loss of unfettered access for goods travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland surely we would all agree how important it is that we protect the unfettered access for goods travelling the other way and for the exchange of services in both directions. Indeed, if the Government are promising to maintain that unfettered access, I cannot see why they would urge Members of this House to vote against the opportunity to put that promise into law.
Finally, let me turn to the other amendments. We welcome amendments 9 and 10, which would expand the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to cover the impact of food on public health. If the Government are to leave it to the commission to protect our food and farming standards against low-cost, low-quality imports, rather than putting those protections into law, then the least they can do is ensure that the commission’s remit covers all the standards that we wish to protect, including those related to public health. I understand that the Government are trying to lift the public health aspects of this amendment, but, before the Minister does that, I urge him to speak to his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about Government undertakings that may have been given before we had clause 42 of the Agriculture Bill.
There is a common thread running through all the amendments that I have mentioned and through those that I will come on to relating to human rights. The common thread is this: if we do not have the right procedures in place to allow proper parliamentary engagement in the Government’s trade negotiations and proper parliamentary debate and approval of the Government’s new trade deals, then, inevitably, Members will seek instead to ring-fence what the Government can give away and protect in law the standards that we want to preserve.
I just do not understand why the Government are so stubbornly holding on to the Ponsonby rule and CRaG and laws that come from a previous century and a previous age. Why we cannot step into the 21st century as a confident democracy is beyond me. In other words, if we do not have proper scrutiny of the Government’s trade deals, we must have proper safeguards on what the deals can do. Personally, I argue that we should want the best of both worlds—proper safeguards coupled with proper scrutiny—but surely every Member of this House can agree that the worst and most illogical of all worlds is to have neither. I urge Conservative Members, when they are instructed by the Government later to vote down not just the amendments relating to NHS data, online harms, standards, public health and unfettered access, but Lords amendments 1 and 5 relating to parliamentary scrutiny, please to say to the Government that one set of amendments or the other may be opposed, but logically they cannot oppose them both.
Anthony Mangnall
It is somewhat unfair to suggest that the Government have not moved on this issue already. I serve on the International Trade Committee and the facts are that the Trade Committee is able to scrutinise each trade agreement, Parliament is then able to debate that, and there is CRaG. That means that there is scrutiny, so it is not acceptable to go back to constituents and say that there is no scrutiny mechanism for our trade deals. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that that is enough?
Emily Thornberry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but as he and I know, the International Trade Committee was promised access to the Japan deal and to the assorted documents attached to it by a certain date, and that did not happen. First, the Committee did not get the time that it should have been given. Secondly, notwithstanding some fairly wild claims made by the Minister about the ability of Parliament to vote on these matters, the reality is different. An international deal can be signed on behalf of Her Majesty by this Government and the only way in which this Parliament can vote against it is under CRaG, which means that Labour needs to use an Opposition Day to have a vote. What happens—and this has happened—when we do not get Opposition Days during the period in which we are allowed to debate a trade deal and have a vote on it? It cannot be claimed that the roll-over deals that we have had so far have been followed by time given to Parliament to debate them.
The hon. Gentleman is in a privileged position as a member of the International Trade Committee, because he has a greater opportunity to scrutinise any deal, but the rest of Parliament does not. We are making deals with countries that come from the same stable—because of historic reasons, have developed their democracies on the back of learning about democracy from our country—and yet they now have a greater chance than we do to scrutinise those trade deals. What holds up a trade deal is not British Parliament having the time to scrutinise it, but the other Parliament in the country with which we are signing the trade deal.
Emily Thornberry
I do not think I am going to allow double-dipping; we are talking about democracy but there is no one on our side here in Parliament because we are all participating remotely. The Labour party has taken the decision that the correct way to react to the pandemic is to work from home when necessary, so it is more difficult for Labour Members to intervene in these circumstances. I do not mean to be unreasonable or unfair, but frankly that is the reason why.
Mr Djanogly
Is not the situation at the moment that, effectively, the amount of scrutiny provided is at the whim of the Executive? If they want to give us hundreds of pages of Bill the day before we have to sign, they can do that. If they want to give another country a month for scrutiny, as with Japan, but us no time at all, they can do that. We need a system here.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I do not think we should go much further down this line. I have 59 Back-Bench Members who wish to participate in this scrutiny now, so let us not go down the rabbit hole of scrutiny but stick to the purpose of the amendments before us.
Emily Thornberry
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My argument is simply that the scrutiny amendment among these amendments is perhaps the most important, because if Parliament could be allowed scrutiny, we would not focus on other particular issues, because we would know that, in the end, Parliament could make the decision. I would find it particularly astonishing if any Government Minister or Whip is able to look their colleagues in the face and ask them to vote down the amendments on parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals after the shambles we saw in December with the supposed scrutiny of the new continuity agreements—10 deals that were agreed too late to complete the 21-day ratification process before they came into force.
The Minister is an intelligent man, and I am surprised that he is so uninformed. Four of those deals were finally laid before Parliament on the afternoon of new year’s eve, just a few hours before they took effect. The deal with Cameroon has still not been laid before Parliament, almost three weeks after it came into force. Needless to say, there was not a single word of parliamentary debate about any of those 10 agreements before they took effect, let alone any suggestion of parliamentary approval. The very fact that it is possible for all that to happen without falling foul of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is all the evidence we should need that the procedures set out in CRaG for the scrutiny of the Government’s trade deals are simply not up to the job.
The Government might make the argument that, since those 10 deals in December did not sell any NHS data or alter our standards on food hygiene, their agreement does not make the case for the amendments I mention or for new levels of parliamentary scrutiny. However, that brings me to the issue of human rights. What happened in December makes an incontrovertible case for Lords amendments 2 and 3, on human rights, and 1 and 5, on parliamentary scrutiny.
It is understandable and right that many Members will focus their contributions on the situation in China and the plight of the Uyghur people. We have all read with horror the first-hand accounts of torture and extrajudicial killings, mass incarceration in detention camps, forced sterilisation and abortions, servitude and slave labour. It shames the world that this is happening in our lifetime and it disgraces the Government of China. It is absolutely right that if a UK trade deal with Beijing is proposed or agreed, representatives of the Uyghur community should be able to seek a ruling from the High Court that the crimes they face in China meet the criteria for a charge of genocide, in turn requiring the UK Government to consider revoking that trade deal. When the Minister has an opportunity to look at the compromise amendment, as it has been called, he will see that that is what is being suggested.
There have been various arguments by Ministers as to why the proposed genocide amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary. I will deal with one of those in particular. It has already been suggested that no trade deal with China is imminent, and so measures to block such a deal are premature—a point well made, Members may think. However, the problem is that it cannot be squared with the fact that both the UK and China have to different degrees announced their plans to consider joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the trans-Pacific trade partnership.
If the Government cannot guarantee, first, that they will beat China to the punch, and secondly, that they will be given veto power over any future bid by China for membership, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to guarantee to Members of the House that a trade deal with China is not on the horizon, because in the shape of CPTPP it most obviously is. That was why I was trying to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman—to see what his answer was. I would be happy to give way again, or perhaps he can answer at the end of the debate.
That dispute about the potential timing of any China deal raises a very important issue, which I hope all supporters of the genocide amendment will consider very seriously. During this debate on trade and human rights, and the surrounding media coverage, it would be very easy to tell ourselves that this is a discussion entirely about China, and therefore entirely about deals that might or might not take place in the future. The reality is that it should, and it must, also be a debate about the deals that the Government have done this month, and the deals that they are openly planning to do in the next two years, because anyone who cares deeply about the human rights of China must also have deep concerns about the records of Egypt, Turkey and Cameroon or Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Brazil. That is why Lords amendment 3 demands that before the Government negotiate and sign such trade deals in future, they should present Parliament with a report on the human rights record in each country in question and allow Parliament to take that into account during the process of scrutiny and approval.
Let me give the House one example of why Lords amendment 3 is required. Just five days before the US Senate was attacked, it came together to approve a resolution co-sponsored by 20 senators from both parties, from Marco Rubio to Cory Brooker. It was about the brutal campaign of subjugation by the French-speaking Government in Cameroon against the country’s English-speaking minority. The Senate resolution condemned with great force the atrocities committed by the Anglophone separatist militias, and it speaks with equal power about the actions of the Cameroon Government, including “torture, sexual abuse,”
massacres and
“burning of villages, the use of live ammunition against protestors, arbitrary arrest and”
unlawful
“detention…enforced disappearances, deaths in custody,”
attacks on journalists and the regular killing of
“civilians, including women, children and the elderly”.
The Senate resolution noted approvingly that, exactly one year before, the Office of the United States Trade Representative—remember, this was Donald Trump’s trade representative, the direct counterpart of the Secretary of State for International Trade—had terminated Cameroon’s access to preferential trade rights due to
“persistent gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
Finally, in that same spirit, the Senate resolution urged members of the international community to join the United States in a strategic collective effort to put pressure on the Government of Cameroon, including through “the use of” all
“available diplomatic and punitive tools”.
I have quoted that Senate resolution at length because I believe that we must ask ourselves what on earth those senators would think if they knew that on that very same day, when they were unanimously passing those strong words of condemnation towards the Government of Cameroon and urging the international community to join them, here in the United Kingdom we were bringing into effect a brand-new continuity trade agreement with Cameroon—a trade deal that was agreed by Ministers apparently with no consideration, and clearly no concern, for the persistent gross violations of international human rights that are taking place inside Cameron; a trade deal that none of us in this House bar Ministers have even been allowed to read, let alone debate or approve; and a trade deal that may or may not contain provisions on human rights, but until the Government finally decide to publish it, we the elected Members of this Parliament simply cannot know. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will keep the example of Cameroon in mind, and consider the words of the US Senate and the actions of the US trade representative, when judging how to vote later.
We all know that on occasions such as this when amendments are up for debate, Ministers will try to persuade us that they do not disagree with the good intentions behind them, but they just do not think that they are really required. However, if that is what Ministers say today in relation to Lords amendments 2 and 3 on human rights, or Lords amendments 1 and 5 on parliamentary scrutiny, I only ask Members to remember Cameroon: a trade deal done with a regime that is slaughtering women and children just because they live in English-speaking towns; a trade deal done in the face of the US Senate on the same day that it called for international support; and a trade deal that, incredibly, has still not been laid before Parliament, almost three weeks after it came into force.
I urge all Members to think about the Cameroon deal and how little consideration Ministers gave either to human rights or to the rights of this Parliament when they decided to sign it. Finally, I urge Members to ask themselves and their conscience whether they accept what those same Ministers are saying when they go through the amendments before us today and tell us, “They’re not really required.”
Madam Deputy Speaker
I had hoped that we might manage at least the first part of this consideration without a formal time limit, but I will have to impose a time limit initially of six minutes, at the absolute outside—in the hope that Members will take less time than that.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I am conscious that time is tight, so I am going to try to make my points as quickly as possible. I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 3, and in particular to support and speak to amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 3 standing in my name and the names of my colleagues, as set out on the amendment paper. Amendment (a), by the way, has been in the hands of the Government now for over a week, and I put it on record that I have had no calls back or contact, but maybe that is going to change.
Let me turn to the reasons behind Lords amendment 3. The Lords tabled this amendment because it would enable the courts in the UK to make an advisory—I stress, advisory—preliminary genocide judgment for Governments to consider when signing trade deals with states accused of committing genocide. The amendment provides a sound legal basis for the Government to engage in obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in a way that is consistent, frankly, with the long-standing UK policy on genocide. After all, we were founder signers of the original charter, which bound the UK Government and all Governments to implement that charter in their own rights, rather than simply leaving it to the International Criminal Court.
The amendment is necessary because, as we have all seen, existing international mechanisms have, frankly, failed: in the UN, any reference to the ICC that is not agreed to by particularly intolerant states is immediately vetoed. The amendment would open perhaps the most important thing that has gone missing: the ability for victims of alleged genocide to see justice. That would include ethnic and religious minorities, such as those in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur region, maybe even the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and others. My point is that the amendment would bring that back to the UK courts.
The amendment is very important, as it deals with the UK’s independent trade policy—for the last 50 years, we have not had control; now we have left the European Union and have control—and would allow the UK courts, when a trade arrangement is being negotiated or taking place, to determine on a preliminary basis whether genocide has occurred in the country that we are supposing to strike that trade arrangement with at that particular time. Let me say that this is in regard to free trade arrangements; it does not really cover bilaterals.
The amendment is needed because Uyghurs and victims of alleged genocide have been denied justice for many years. As the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, these are people at the moment—there are others as well—who have been pushed into slave labour, have had sterilisation forced on them and whose population has shrunk by some 85%, and that country is exporting trade goods produced by slave labour. It is quite clear to me, but I am not able to say so, that this has all the hallmarks of genocide. I am not able to say so, because at the end of the day we all agree that the courts have to make that decision. It is not for individual politicians to do so.
Steve Brine
I am tempted by my right hon. Friend’s amendment and I am listening to him very carefully, as I always do. At the moment we have a form of public health activism, where experts make decisions and it is then very difficult for politicians to disagree with those determinations. What does he say to that form of judicial activism? What would be the likelihood of this House disagreeing with such a determination? That is the concern some of us have with his amendment.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree. I put the question back to my hon. Friend, as I have to other hon. Friends. If, on balance, the courts decide—we have faith in our courts—that this is likely to be genocide, I simply ask why would we be doing a trade deal with a country that is guilty of genocide. We may not wish to disagree, but the power still remains. The pedantic point put forward by the Government was that it was all about loss of power. I say that that is simply not the case. It would certainly not be in our amendment, because it is very specific that the Government have to do that.
On the vexatious claims point, the High Court is quite capable of dismissing anything on that level. By the way, this is the highest bar that can be set for any accusation. To try to wipe out an ethnic group is the No. 1 crime in the world. The High Court knows that and would dismiss anything that was vexatious. There would be no point in doing otherwise—that would demean it and wreck its reputation.
The Government say that the amendment, being limited to genocide, is practically unenforceable. Well, maybe that is true, in which case we need to look again at the UN charter, but the reality is that right now this is unenforceable—nobody out there can bring a charge of genocide, because they are blocked. We come back to the same point: we argue about genocide, and the Government say they do not want to do deals with people who commit genocide. I have huge admiration for my right hon. Friend the Minister. We have worked very closely together on many things. However, I noted his language when it came to accusations of the sale of the NHS. He said, “Not and never will be sold.” When it came to China and a trade deal it was, “No plans to do one yet.” We can be emphatic from the Dispatch Box when we want to be. We can make absolute statements when we want to, but when we do not—I have been in Government—we simply do not. That tells us everything we need to know. The Government need to have that check on them.
I conclude by saying that the Government cannot have it both ways. If they say it is for the courts, then the question is which court and the amendment says that. Overall, I have to say that the amendment is not anti-China, but it is anti-genocide. We need now to stand tall. We left the European Union because we did not want to accept judgments from a court over which we said we did not have power. We did not come away because we disliked our courts. I think we have the best courts in the world, and I think they can make this judgment. My question, therefore, is this: what is it about? Why did we leave? So that we would stand tall and have a global vision about the morality of what we do. I say to my colleagues and to those on the Front Bench that tonight is about more than just pettifogging. Tonight is all about shining a light of hope to all those out there who have failed to get their day in court and to be treated properly. If this country does not stand up for that, then I want to know what would it ever stand up for again. I urge my colleagues to vote to keep Lords amendment 3 in the Bill.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
If I may start by making some general observations, we have previously agreed with the Secretary of State for International Trade about the necessity of keeping trade open, recognising the importance of supply chains and how important it is that we stand against protectionism. I am happy to reiterate all of that today. Indeed, we all should, because we need to combat the three main threats to trade. The first, self-evidently, is the covid crisis, which the World Health Organisation suggests could lead to a massive fall in global trade. The second is the impact of Brexit, and thirdly, we must address the systemic problem of the continued implementation of new trade restriction measures, and the continuation of existing ones. For example, tariffs valued at somewhere north of $1.6 trillion are in force around the world. I am not confident that any of those problems will be resolved any time soon, and the Bill does not address any of those matters directly. It is presented mainly as trying to facilitate the roll-over of existing deals, and maintaining trade that the UK has with third countries, which is vital.
The Bill does a number of other things, as the Minister set out. It creates procurement obligations arising from membership of the agreement on Government procurement. It creates the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and gives power to HMRC to collect and share data. As I have said, however, it is not without its problems, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have come from the other place, which cover a large number of areas. I will address those issues shortly—and hopefully briefly.
As the Scottish National party has made clear during the passage of the Bill, a number of the problems relate to the impact on the devolved Administrations and consent, the role and powers of any scrutinising Committee, parliamentary scrutiny and approval, international standards and agreements, food and animal welfare issues, concerns about the NHS and, as we have just heard, concerns about human rights in trading partner countries. The amendments from the other place deal with a number of those issues.
Let me summarise the SNP’s attitude to the main amendments. Lords amendment 1 seeks to enshrine parliamentary approval of trade agreements. That is one of the fundamental problems with the Bill as it stands. The absence of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and a parliamentary vote on significant changes or modifications, or in future on new trade deals that may be envisaged by the Government, is a massive problem. Modern democracies need full scrutiny of trade agreements, from the scope of the negotiating mandate, right through to implementation. Without amendment 1, the CRaG provisions, which are prayed in aid by the Government, amount to little more than a “take it or leave it” choice at the end of the negotiations, without the ability to amend. That is inadequate.
Lords amendment 1 also requires the UK Government to consult the devolved nations. That is not consent, but it is progress of a sort.
Lords amendment 2 seeks compliance with international obligations. We raised that matter previously, and new clause 7 on Report was designed to do a number of things. First, it was intended to affirm the UK’s rights and obligations under the sanitary and phytosanitary measures in annex 1A of the WTO agreement. The amendment focuses mainly on human rights, but it also states that before publishing trade objectives, the Government must conduct a risk assessment to consider whether the agreement would comply with the UK’s international treaties and other obligations. It seems eminently sensible to ensure that any free trade agreement complies with international obligations, whether human rights obligations or otherwise.
Lords amendment 3 deals with genocide, and as the Minister knows, there has been a great deal of support for such a measure. There are some serious concerns about the amendment as it stands, not least in allowing the English High Court to determine what is and what is not genocide, but the principle of revoking a trade deal with a state committing such heinous crimes is beyond reproach.
Lords amendment 4 covers IT and related activities in the NHS. I have previously argued that there should be no use of negative listings, because such clauses require that all industries are liberalised in trade agreements unless there are specific carve-outs, and it is not always easy to define which services count as, for example, health services. Digital services may be irrelevant to health, but NHS data management and GP appointment systems are increasingly digitised. There should be no standstill or ratchet clauses, because those provisions would mean that after a trade deal was signed, parties would not be able to reduce the level of liberalisation beyond what it was at the point of signature. Lords amendment 4 explicitly excludes the use of such negative listing and ratchet clauses and rules out the use of ISDS-type provisions for public services, including health, which would be extremely popular with the public.
Lords amendment 5 addresses ratification, including the requirement for a debate. I have previously asked whether, if it was the intention of the Government to provide sensitive information to a scrutiny Committee, that would be the Select Committee on International Trade, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I also asked whether any papers provided would be publishable or restricted. Lords amendment 5 would force the Government to publish an analysis, which would presumably ensure that such information was more widely available. The amendment would also ensure that a debate was held, on the recommendation of such a Committee. That is a very sensible measure indeed.
Lords amendment 6 deals with standards, including food and animal welfare standards, which are of massive concern to the public. As I said on Report, we know that trade deals can put pressure on food standards and lead to the importation of low-standard food. For example, the previous US Administration made it clear that they wanted the UK to lower its food and animal welfare standards. We suggested a ban on the importation of food that was produced to standards lower than those in the UK. Lords amendment 6 is clear that a Minister of the Crown should ensure
“as far as possible that a future trade agreement is consistent with United Kingdom levels of statutory protection regarding, among other things—
(a) human, animal or plant life or health;
(b) animal welfare;
(c) the environment;
(d) food safety, quality, hygiene and traceability;”
and so on. That is an eminently sensible thing to do. The amendment also states that should a Minister seek to change standards, they would have to “seek the consent” of the devolved nations in advance. That is absolutely the right way to proceed.
Lords amendment 7 seeks additional protection for children online, ensuring that legislation is consistent with international treaties. Lords amendment 13, which I understand the Government are minded to accept, addresses the relationship with the devolved Administrations, ensuring that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can provide information to the devolved Administrations so that they can fulfil their obligations in terms of trade.
A comprehensive trade Bill is vital, but it has to be right. This Bill has been subject to dozens of amendments in the other place, many with widescale public support. There is still a great deal of work to be done and compromises to be made before this Bill is acceptable.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I want to say at the outset that I completely agree with the need to set ethical frameworks in all our overseas dealings, including trade. In so far as these amendments deal with China, I also completely agree that the treatment of the Uyghurs is a violation of historic proportions that should be condemned whether or not it meets the very high legal test of genocide. We should be willing to take action when we think that behaviour does not meet that very high international bar.
However, I am against these specific Lords amendments for four reasons. First, I think trade policy should be conducted via the elected Government through Parliament. I, along with many Conservative Members, voted to leave the European Union to take back control. I do not want to take back control from unelected judges in Europe and give more power to judges in the United Kingdom, however high the esteem in which they are held. I want the decisions about the ethical nature of our policy to be decided in Parliament, by elected parliamentarians. I agree with many of the elements that are being discussed here. I do not want to see more powers coming back from Europe, only for them to be exercised by royal prerogative; I want to see them exercised by the democratic House.
Ms Ghani
My right hon. Friend will know that we have offered such a compromise, which very easily separated the role of powers, whether of the courts, the Executive or parliamentarians, but it has been rejected outright. If there is no apparent objection to that, really, what is the Government’s position on dealing with genocide within trade?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend should ask the Government; I am not the Government. My view is that we want to ensure that the powers are exercised exclusively by Parliament. I do not want any outside body, including the courts, to have a say on what we should or should not do. But I agree that we could have had a mechanism that allowed the House to do that in a way that satisfied all the reservations that have been put forward.
My second reason for objecting to the amendment is that I think it is the thin end of the wedge. If we set a precedent that says that the courts can make a judgment on genocide, where does it stop? In future trade Bills, we may get amendments on the use of torture or on other human rights violations. Valid though those points may be, once we have set a precedent that the court can make a judgment and tell Parliament what it can and cannot do, I wonder how we can reverse that trend.
Thirdly, I think the amendment is not good for our judges. It is difficult to know what the evidential base would be upon which judges would make such a decision, and therefore we bring judges into the territory that many of us saw and were uncomfortable with in the last Parliament, where judges are dragged into making political decisions; that is an uncomfortable place for them and us.
Finally, I do not think this amendment would make any difference whatever to the behaviour of the Chinese Government in relation to the Uyghurs or anyone else. It would not affect our trade with China in any way, shape or form. It would not even deal, for example, with dual-use materials when it comes to the Chinese state security apparatus. For that reason, it is an impotent tool when it comes to dealing with the Chinese Government.
If we believe in this Parliament that the behaviour of the Chinese Government warrants sanctions, we have sanctions available to us. The British Government, if enough pressure is applied by Parliament, can use those sanctions—whether the Magnitsky sanctions that come from our more recent legislation, or wider sanctions. We do not have to wait for an international agreement to be able apply sanctions that we are bringing forward on the grounds of the high bar of genocide. So it is up to Parliament to make such decisions.
We talk about taking back control, but Parliament has got to stop giving its decision-making powers away. If we want to be respected in this Parliament, we have to be the ultimate arbiters of the decisions and direction of travel of our country. We can have those powers. I say to the Minister for Trade Policy that we have had these discussions. I hope that the Government will bring forward mechanisms that allow the House to have much greater scrutiny at the outset of a trade negotiation to set those ethical parameters.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will be quick, because I know that my right hon. Friend has to be quick. When it comes to genocide, it is different, because genocide has to be decided by the courts. We have no right to make that decision. So how is he going to allow that we would affect anything on trade, unless a court makes that decision? Why not the UK courts, so that then we can decide if we implement it or not?
Dr Fox
Because I believe that the high court of Parliament is the appropriate place to do that. Parliament can apply sanctions where it believes they are justified. Our new legislation allows us to do that.
I believe that setting a political precedent to make a political case is bad practice. If Parliament wants to take action against China or any other country, on behalf of those who they believe have been partially, unfairly or violently dealt with, the best route is to try to pressure the UK Government to take those measures. The Lords amendments being put forward today for the very best reasons are the very worst practice. That is a good reason for Parliament to reject them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call the next hon. Member, I give notice that the time limit will be reduced to four minutes after the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). We have three more colleagues on six minutes; thereafter, four minutes. I call Shabana Mahmood.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
I wish to speak in support of Lords amendment 3, known as the genocide amendment, moved by Lord Alton in the other place, which deals with trade agreements made with states accused of committing genocide. I associate myself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, on that amendment and on the human rights situation more generally.
I am grateful for the cross-party efforts that led to the addition of the amendment to the Bill; I hope that another cross-party effort in this House will be successful today. I note the comments the Minister made in opening the debate today. They follow the position taken by the Foreign Secretary when he made a statement to the House on forced labour supply chains last week. The approach taken by the Government is dispiriting and deeply disappointing. If the Government prevail today, I believe they will come to regret it.
The amendment will, first, send a clear signal about the absolute basic threshold that must be crossed before we strike trade deals around the world, and about the sorts of people, countries and regimes that we will do business with. Not being a genocidal state should be the absolute minimum requirement that all of us in this House should be able to sign up to. It would enable the UK courts to make what is, in effect, an advisory preliminary determination of genocide for the Government to consider when they are signing trade deals with states accused of committing genocide.
The Government say that genocide determination is a matter for judges, not politicians. That is the long-standing position of UK Governments of all political persuasions. The amendment would provide the only viable legal route to have a genocide determination made by judges.
That is why the remarks made by the former Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), just a few moments ago, are entirely wrong. When we talk about genocide, it has to be a determination made by judges in a legal context. The problem is that at the moment the international legal system—the routes provided by the United Nations and international treaties—are, frankly, a busted flush. Something is needed to break the cycle of inaction and ineffectiveness. We are awash with warm words that simply do not change the situation on the ground. All we are currently laying the ground for is an after-the-fact statement of sorrow when genocide has occurred. The world keeps saying, “Never again” in relation to genocide, yet it occurs with shocking, depressing regularity.
China is, of course, the most striking example of the failures of the international system. The Government recognise and condemn the actions of the Chinese regime against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Mountains of evidence exist about forced sterilisation, mass detentions, slave labour and the destruction of culture and heritage. To my mind, a genocide is being perpetrated by the Chinese regime against the Uyghur people, but of course that requires a legal determination in a court to have legal force, rather than simply political and moral force.
Every international legal route is blocked by the Chinese Government—China has a veto. It has a majority on the UN Human Rights Council and is not a party to the International Criminal Court. The amendment provides a mechanism for the UK High Court to make a preliminary determination in the context of a trade agreement. If the UK High Court rules that the extremely high evidential bar for the crime of genocide is satisfied, its judgment will be available for the Government to consider.
Perpetrators of genocide should not be rewarded. They must know that actions have consequences, and an increasingly belligerent China needs to see that the British Government will not simply stand by and watch, impotent and unable to do anything whatsoever. The modest import and export restrictions linked to forced labour abuses that were made by the Government last week are welcome, but they do not deal with the specific charge of genocide, so I am afraid that that action, although it is welcome and although it was taken by the Government only last week, cannot get them off the hook on agreeing with the amendment today.
The amendment does not give the courts too much power. It is supported by eminent lawyers in the other place who have dealt with the issues around the separation of powers far better than I can in the short time available to me. In any case, if the Government agree that genocide determination is a matter for judges, the fact that at the moment their position amounts to saying that they will go along with a genocide determination made by international judges through the international system, but not one made by our own High Court, to my mind, simply does not stand up.
The amendment does not prevent the international legal system from kicking into action, although frankly that seems impossible at this point. In any case, it is a preliminary determination. It would enable the word “genocide” to be used credibly in a legal sense and I simply do not buy the idea that the courts would be swamped with vexatious claims. They can, will and regularly do dismiss claims that lack minimum standards of evidence. I say to the Minister that, if the amendment still does not work for the Government, they should have considered compromise amendments and efforts to reach compromise offered by Members from their own Benches, which I agree with and support. They say we have no trade agreement with China. We do not have an FTA with China, but we have other bilateral trade agreements with China, such as the UK-China bilateral trade and investment treaty. Others could be made.
Genocide is described as the crime above all crimes. Surely we can all agree in this House today that it must be the minimum starting point for the conditions we will place on whom we will trade with. I urge the Government to change course and accept the amendment today.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
It is an enormous pleasure to speak in the debate this afternoon because this is one of the most important questions our House will consider. It is worth remembering why genocide is a crime beyond others. It is not just that many of us in this House have personal experience through family of genocide within the lifetimes of many people alive today. That is one reason why the Jewish News has been so active in support of this measure. Genocide tries to do something that no other crime attempts. It tries to end history. It tries to remove an entire people, an entire culture and an entire part of our world from the planet and to pretend it never happened. It is an erasure of life unlike every other crime. It is worse in all senses, therefore, than torture or murder, worse than the destruction of cultural property and worse than slavery, even though it may include all those elements. That is why I think genocide stands unique, and why I think the amendment does not give way to a drip, drip of further encroachment.
Genocide is unique. Genocide is distinct. It is much, much worse than any other crime, even though it makes up others. That is why we have always reserved this power to the courts. We have always said that this is not a political tool. It is not a tool for politicians to wield against trade rivals or enemies. It is a charge that can be wielded only by a court. The way we have done that is to try to act together, and allow the charge to sit only with international courts. For years we could see why that was the case, because it ensured that we all acted together. If there was a charge and it was proven, we were all as one responding to an abuse against the whole of humanity. Genocide is a crime against the whole of humanity.
Sadly, the way the world has changed means that the obstacles we are facing in our international institutions is becoming overwhelming, so we have a choice. That choice is either to allow the current system to stand and to say that in reality we will never again recognise genocide, or to say that there is a way through this. There is a way through, and that is by trusting our institutions and our judges, and recognising that our judges and legal institutions are actually trusted worldwide. The House does not have to take my word for this—look at how many foreign cases are pressed through our courts. That is a choice that we have to make, and I understand the Minister’s comments. In fact, he has done an amazing amount of work in supporting Britain’s position overseas, defending our legal infrastructure and promoting our legal business around the world, so he knows better than anyone the respect in which we are held.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Feasgar math, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you very much for calling me at this stage of the Bill. I am speaking from the island of Barra in Scotland, which has just been included in tier 4 with the mainland. That is one of the reasons why I have not been travelling and why this is the first time I will speak in any stage of the Trade Bill. I am grateful that we are back to a virtual Parliament, which should have been happening long ago.
I would like to mention a couple of things before I get to the meat of this. A lot of constituents, and people who are not constituents, have been getting in touch about the NHS. I did hear the Minister say that the NHS would not be on the table and I hope that that includes the back door and every other side angle into the NHS. Food standards concern an awful lot of people. Over a quarter of a million emails were sent to MPs in the last year on food standards, so we should be very aware of that, as indeed we should be of standards in agriculture and general trade. The role of Parliament in scrutinising deals comes up a lot in correspondence, so I will raise that, too. ActionAid has pointed out, very valuably, that the fallout from covid-19 has shone a new light on the disproportionate impact of trade policies on women and girls, who comprise the majority of unpaid carers. It has had a particular impact on women and girls in the global south and has affected the work of women in trade. When trade is considered, we should think of all of humanity, and particularly the half of us who are of a different gender.
Scrutiny is indeed a very good thing. Let us think about this. With a lack of scrutiny, which Brexiteer thought that they were making the EU bureaucrat king over the UK’s export trade? But that is what has happened, as the shellfish guys and girls, and other exporters, will tell us. Much to the frustration of many in the shellfish sector, we have the EU bureaucrat with the clipboard, demanding five or six more bits of paper before things can move, where once they moved freely. And it is not just them, but exporters in general. From July, they will met by not just the EU bureaucrat, but another set of bureaucrats coming in as quasi-monarchs—the bureaucrats of the UK—and importers will be hit as well. The lack of scrutiny was probably one of the reasons that it came as a late dawn for many that the UK trade bloc is now smaller than the UK—quite an achievement for Brexit.
We move towards scrutiny in a bit more depth in amendment 5. My Committee had difficulty with the Japan agreement because of the time we had at the end for scrutiny and the experts we could share it with. I would have raised this concern earlier in Parliament had I been able to, but of course then there was no virtual Parliament. The access we had to negotiators was very interesting. We usually got the debonair, bland kind of guys at the top when we wanted the guys at the coalface who were negotiating during the trade deal—but that did not happen. Information we got during the briefings did not bear much relation to the matters that came up at the end, such as UK negotiators setting the principle of playing second fiddle to the EU when it came to tariff rate quotas in relation to Japan.
The UK boasts that it is doing 63 more trade deals. What it is doing is rolling over trade deals, and it is not actually getting any GDP increase from that. It is worth considering the numbers, because in the flowery language that is often thrown around on this, the numbers talk most. The cost of Brexit at the moment is 4.9% of UK GDP; it is costly. No trade deal that the UK has made or signed so far is recovering this 4.9% damage. The Japan trade deal was touted as being a 0.07% gain. To put this in context so that people understand, let us call that £4.90. The Japan trade deal was reported as giving us back 7p of that damage, but in fact it was not, because the UK was already trading under the trade deal that the EU had with Japan, so the net gain was, in effect, zero. The UK Government had not done the numbers comparison between the two, which was disappointing. Again, the need for scrutiny is large.
When it comes to the best trade deal we can get—the American trade deal—that is only going to give the UK about a 20p increase on the £4.90, comparatively, that is lost. We need 24-and-a-half times such trade agreements to make up the damage. As America has a quarter of the world’s GDP, that effectively means finding seven or eight planets we can drive lorries to, or ship containers on boats to, to counteract the GDP damage that Brexit has done, so clearly it ain’t going to happen. The trade deals that we are doing need to be looked at responsibly and carefully. Incidentally, on the American side, the GDP gain for them is only 0.02%, or 2p. I am sure that the new Biden Administration will have bits of paper showing other priorities for greater economic growth, before a trade deal with the United Kingdom. Again, that scrutiny could have stopped us misleading ourselves.
On Amendment 3, I think everybody considers that to be the right thing. It is just that if the FTAs are suspended, do we then go back to trading on WTO rules, and when does that happen? Surely something stronger needs to be in place on that.
The best of all trade deals available is the one we have just walked away from. If the UK wants to increase GDP by 4.9%, there is the single market and the customs union, and that will help our shellfish guys as well. Tapadh leibh, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
You are still smiling, Angus. We now go down to a four-minute limit.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]
Let me speak to the Lords amendment tabled in the name of Lord Alton. I join colleagues in utterly condemning the human rights abuses in Xinjiang with the Uyghurs. They are awful; it shames the perpetrators and to put it bluntly they should stop, immediately. However, like many colleagues, I am concerned about subcontracting Government policy to a bunch of unelected judges and lawyers. We cannot, as a Government, put ourselves in the position, however noble the intent, of allowing an agreement by a democratically elected Government with another Government to be struck down or put in jeopardy by a court, no matter how morally correct the case may be and how much I would personally agree with it. I say this because trade is just too important to our people—to the businesses and communities of South Ribble, Lancashire and beyond.
We heard recently in this House about global Britain—quite right. This Government are creating opportunities. We had 60-odd trade deals signed last year and there are more under negotiation. These are brilliant times. Instead of involving the courts, we should put all our focus on encouraging and supporting small businesses and breaking down barriers to trade. We should do everything we can as a Government and strain every sinew to encourage small businesses to trade globally, exporting their goods and services.
Practically, I am calling on the Government to use and build on their brilliant work in this area to further the take-up of this challenge in two main areas. The first is practical help. If somebody is thinking about exporting and they put “How to export” into Google, they get a list of nonsense. We need simple, clear “how to” guidelines to get people started and to build their confidence so that they believe that this is something for them. We need to invest in start-up units at affordable rates to make sure that somebody with a great idea or somebody wanting to expand is not getting caught with huge capital costs up front. Let us make exporting the everyday thing it so easily is, as I know from my own experience.
Secondly, we need to address the emotions of pride and ambition, and community pride. If a businessperson starts exporting and they create a job for somebody in their community because of it, the whole pub should buy them a drink, because what they are doing is on a par with the amazing community spirit that we have seen during these covid times of volunteers. They are doing a community service and they should be celebrated. Let us have a national award scheme for businesses that start exporting, and let us give them a plaque to put up on their business’s wall, “Here resides a great British exporter”.
I will oppose the Lords amendments today because I do not think this is the right place, but I welcome this whole Trade Bill. Ultimately, I believe that global Britain wins arguments against repressive regimes by proudly sharing how our way is better for all of our peoples.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
We were told that we were going to take back control and we were going to ensure our sovereignty, and that to do that, we must be allowed a say on the rules and standards by which we are governed—to be rule makers, not rule takers. These are phrases we have heard many times over the last few years, and these amendments coming back from the Lords today will do precisely that—give our sovereign Parliament a say over any trade agreements made by the Executive.
When we were members of the European Union, our MEPs had, on any trade deal negotiated, a guaranteed debate and vote in the European Parliament, and if a trade deal was not deemed acceptable, it could be rejected. Why would we now accept a lesser say in this Parliament? Our constituents expect representation. It is not just in Europe, but in Japan and the United States that they have higher standards.
I welcome President Biden’s inauguration tomorrow, and he will be working with a new Senate and a new House. The new Congress will enjoy scrutiny over its trade deals, but without these amendments, we will not. Before negotiations, Congress can see and vote on general objectives, which are then published for public consultation. Once negotiations are complete, the agreement must then be ratified by Congress. Why would we hold ourselves to a lesser standard than that?
I know these principles have wide cross-Bench and public support, including from the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Greener UK, the CBI, Which? and so on—we should pass Lords amendment 1. However, that is not the only amendment in front of us today. Half a million people have signed a petition calling on the Government to protect our food standards in law. Lords amendment 6 provides that
“a Minister of the Crown ensures as far as possible that a future trade agreement is consistent with United Kingdom levels of statutory protection”
for food standards, as well as animal welfare, employment and welfare standards, and environmental protections.
If this year has taught us anything, it is that we need to ensure that we do not have a race to the bottom. We must keep our qualities and standards, and we cannot leave the quality of our food on the table in any trade negotiation. In addition, we need a robust TAC that defends public health, protects the environment and ensures the future of our farming communities. As president of COP26, one of the weapons in our armoury for a binding agreement is trade deals, and we would not want to have trade pulling one way and diplomacy another.
Finally, I come to Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the many excellent speeches from around this Chamber already on human rights and democracy. We have a responsibility to people across the globe who are suffering tyranny and genocide. While others have mentioned the impact that these amendments will have in relation to the Uyghurs, these amendments would also be powerful in challenging transactions in Hong Kong as well as the human rights abuses by several other countries, such as Egypt.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made an excellent speech about Cameroon, and the suppression of the Anglophone people there. We have signed a trade agreement with Cameroon that we have not yet seen, which is quite unbelievable. We have future trade negotiations with Indonesia. The Department for International Trade met the Indonesians in November. Future trade discussions must take into account the horrific human rights abuses in West Papua, which many universities have classified as a genocide. We need only look at the current beating and intimidation of voters and Opposition politicians in Uganda to know that situations emerging around the world are important to consider in future trade negotiations.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am an internationalist. I came into politics to encourage Britain to play a more than influential role on the international stage. We certainly have a track record of building alliances and stepping forward when other nations hesitate as a force for good, but the world is changing fast: power bases are shifting and threats are diversifying and, indeed, intensifying. What the debate illustrates is a temporary absence in clarity about what we now stand for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend. Those are the basic benchmarks that frame our international standing, and they can all be summed up in the absence of an integrated review. We await the Government’s defence, security and foreign policy review—to give it its full name—which is the critical statement of intent that defines our ambitions on the international stage, assesses the current and emerging threats and gives clarity on how our soft and hard power capabilities should be upgraded. Without that, the term global Britain lacks direction, and there is no strategic or doctrinal clarity over how to approach the geopolitical challenges posed not least by China.
International opinion on China is clearly changing, following its conduct in suppressing the pandemic’s outbreak, challenging security laws in Hong Kong and continued militarisation of the South China sea as well as, more widely, snaring ever more countries in debt through its One Belt, One Road programme and telecoms programmes. The Foreign Secretary broke new ground last week by speaking so robustly about China’s breaches in human rights, with over a million Uyghurs in political re-education camps, extensive use of surveillance targeting minorities and systematic restrictions on the freedom of religion. That came on the back of the Government’s changes to telecoms policy to remove high-risk vendors from our critical national infrastructure.
We must not lose momentum. For too long, the west bit its tongue as China ignored international trade norms and exercised human rights abuses while we still hoped that it would mature into a responsible international citizen. That clearly is not going to happen. China is on a geopolitical collision course with the west, taking full advantage of our wobbly international rules-based order while we remain in denial.
Today, President Trump is in his last day of office, and President-elect Biden has made it clear that his foreign policy objectives are to recommit to building western alliances and to attempt to address the geopolitical challenges posed by China. The Lords amendment is about offering strategic clarity directed not just at China and standing up to its human rights abuses, but at the United States, our closest ally. This is an opportunity for Britain to craft a post-Brexit international role as we assume the G7 presidency.
The world watched and hesitated when genocide took place in Rwanda and, indeed, in Syria. Let us not hesitate again. Let us have the moral courage to stand tall on what we believe in and what we are willing to defend. It saddens me that I am having to rebel today to encourage my Government to take the moral high ground. It should be our default position.
Sammy Wilson
I rise to support Lords amendment 8, in relation to Northern Ireland, and Lords amendment 3, in relation to acts of genocide. First of all, I will deal with Lords amendment 8. I believe that it is a necessity that we have in the Bill a commitment that Northern Ireland will not be excluded from the benefits of any trade agreements that this country reaches with the rest of the world. People in Northern Ireland are still reeling from that impact that the withdrawal agreement, and particularly the Northern Ireland protocol, have had on their economy and indeed on their preferences and their ability to purchase goods from other parts of the United Kingdom.
Despite some of the efforts made to undo and mitigate the impact of the protocol, it is clear that the withdrawal agreement that we reached with the EU will have a detrimental impact on the Northern Ireland economy. Lords amendment 8 seeks to ensure that, when we enter into future trade agreements with other parts of the world, the impact and benefit of those agreements are not reduced as a result of the protocol. A commitment that no agreement can be ratified until it is ensured that Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the GB market and services coming from GB is very important.
Lords amendment 3 concerns genocide. I have listened to the arguments—that we are handing control over to the courts; that we are diminishing the role of Parliament; that such a situation would be unworkable—but I believe that, first of all, this country has an important duty to send out a message when entering into trade agreements with other parts of the world—that if the Governments of those countries are guilty of abusing their population or seeking to wipe out certain sections of their population, we will not do business with them. We have talked about taking a lead on the global stage now that we have left the EU. Well, here is an opportunity to make clear in legislation where we stand on this issue and that if Governments wish to do business with the fifth biggest economy in the world, we expect certain standards of them.
I do not accept that we would be giving too much power to judges. First of all, this is a very specific power and not the thin end of the wedge, as has been suggested, and if we wished to give more power to the judges, we would have to amend the legislation. We are simply saying, “Look, the only body capable of making a judgment about whether genocide has occurred is the courts.” In fact, it would be wrong for Parliament to have that power. It would be abused, and our arguments against genocide could be diminished, because people could say we made them only for political reasons, or because the majority in this Parliament do not like those people or have some other axe to grind. I therefore think it is important that that power is in the Bill.
Assurance needs to be given to people in Northern Ireland that we still remain part of the United Kingdom and will have the benefits of United Kingdom trade deals, and assurance still needs to be given to people across the world who are being persecuted. The best way of doing that is to include both amendments in the Bill.
Anthony Mangnall
It is a pleasure to speak on this Bill. I rise to speak against Lords amendments 1 and 3. I start by saying how sorry I am that I will not be in the same Lobby as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I have gone into battle with them in the past and hope to do so again.
At the start of the Minister’s statement, he made a point about the opportunities that Parliament would have to ensure that human rights were included in trade deals, and that mechanisms could be provided to ensure that every trade deal had the proper level of parliamentary scrutiny. I would welcome his going further—and intervening, if he must—and telling us how Parliament will be able effectively to ensure that every Member can scrutinise, debate and discuss these issues.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that specific request. I think it is fair to say that this House enjoys significant expertise and experience on questions of human rights, which the Government would seek to take advantage of. I hear various Members and Chairs of Select Committees and others with great experience in this space, and the Government are absolutely committed to making sure that knowledge is utilised and to exploring how we can make sure that the views of colleagues are heard and considered on these issues in relation to our future trade agreements.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank the Minister for his comment, which I would echo in terms of the scrutiny that the International Trade Committee, through the reports we publish, can give each and every one of the trade deals that comes before us.
What is the intent here? We are trying to address the injustices that people face around the world, from the Uyghurs to the Yazidis to the Rohingyas.
Emily Thornberry
Does the hon. Gentleman remember giving any scrutiny to the rollover deal with Egypt, given that Egypt is one of the worst human rights abusers?
Anthony Mangnall
The right hon. Lady is very quick to criticise the fact that many of the deals that we now have are continuity arrangements from the EU. She complained last week that the deals took too long to do and did not include enough detail. The purpose of these deals is not to be the end point but the start point for the future relationship that we wish to have with those countries.
I go back to the point about the intent of amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 3. The intent for every single one of us should be to eradicate genocide and to do everything we can to prevent human rights injustices. Instead, we have an amendment that will do grave injustice not only to the trade deals, but will still essentially see countries trade with one another. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green suggested that this non-advisory trade amendment was advisory. He makes the point that we will be able to take the advice of the High Court but potentially ignore it. That is not what is written in the wording.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is completely wrong. It is absolutely clear that that remains the right of the Government, and I read out what the Government spokesman said in the Lords. If they wish, they can change it—I do not say whether they want to or not, but it is in there; it is our right as Parliament to do that.
Anthony Mangnall
The letter of the law and what amendment (a) in lieu say is that international bilateral trade agreements are revoked if the High Court of England and Wales makes a preliminary determination.
Anthony Mangnall
I will carry on, but my right hon. Friend can come back to me later on. We need to get to the point where we can help those countries where genocide is being committed. That is not done by a trade deal. What do the people who are suffering expect? Is it the High Court deciding whether or not to sign a trade deal? They expect the international community to be engaged and to take action, and that is what we must seek to do. This is global Britain, and global Britain must reach out to its allies to create new institutions and ensure that we take action where appropriate. If we are unhappy with the current international landscape, let us seek to create new international bodies with like-minded colleagues, whether it be Five Eyes or North America. Those are the things that we must do, and we must be ambitious in doing so. I believe to my heart that the Government have the right intent of doing that.
I will speak briefly on Lords amendment 1 on scrutiny. We have heard much from the Opposition about how the Bill does not give any scrutiny to the trade agreements, but that is simply not true. The whole purpose of what is going on in the International Trade Committee, of CRaG and of having debates in this Chamber is to be able to debate such agreements. Frankly, to stand up and say that Parliament is given no time is not an acceptable line of argument. While the Committee had less time to scrutinise the Japanese-UK trade deal, that is now being amended. Ministers have proven themselves particularly willing to listen and have accepted a checklist of parameters before putting forward a trade agreement in the future.
Mr Djanogly
Does my hon. Friend accept that under amendment 5—the Lansley amendment—if a Committee of this House says there should be a debate on a trade deal under CRaG, which he supports, that should happen?
Anthony Mangnall
I revert to what the Minister said earlier about the House being able to have more scrutiny through the International Trade Committee’s individual report on a trade deal, and then a future trade debate can happen around the deal, whether it is between the UK and America or whoever. There should be multiple debates on these trade deals, so that we can all feel that the scrutiny has taken place. That is important, and I do not believe it to be completely against what others are arguing. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is chuntering from a sedentary position. In her entire speech, she said absolutely nothing about the EU-China deal. She seems completely content to ridicule every continuity agreement that we have come to. The purpose of what we are doing here today, what we have done previously and what we will do in the future is to enable us to scrutinise those trade deals, so that the Committee may report back, and to ensure that Back Benchers from every part of this country are able to decide what our future is when it comes to those deals.
As time is ticking away, I will conclude. I appreciate hon. Members’ intention in supporting Lords amendment 3, but we can do better than that and we can go farther. No one in this House supports genocide. No one in this House supports the violation of human rights. So let us look to different ways in which we can effectively engage the international community and show leadership.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for speaking so exceptionally well for us on the amendments.
Tonight I will support the amendments protecting our NHS, child safety, parliamentary scrutiny, our environment and animal welfare, but I shall use my short time this afternoon to speak on the amendments on the most serious human rights abuses and genocide, which is clearly the most heinous crime of all. Those Lords amendments would help us to ensure that our trade policy was in line with our words—and if not now, when? Today, I have time to give voice to just one example, and I want to make it about the Uyghur people in Xinjiang in China. In 2006, tired of racism, Gulbahar fled with her family to France. Ten years later, she was told that she had to return to sign important documents. She returned, and was immediately detained. Her daughter had been at a Uyghur rights demonstration in France, and Gulbahar was therefore branded a terrorist. She was imprisoned in a re-education camp and endured more than two years of humiliating, terrifying, torturous abuse and violence from the Chinese state; and she was forcibly sterilised. She came to understand that the strategy was
“not to kill us in cold blood, but to make us slowly disappear. So slowly that no one would notice.”
Finally, she was found innocent on the trumped-up charges and released.
Such practices are part of a systematic abuse of human rights aimed at millions of Uyghur Muslims. Perhaps, legally, it still is not classified as genocide, but the Uyghur people deserve a fair hearing. We must hear them. I believe our courts must be empowered. If the very worst abuses are going on, it is clear that our trade policy must change. We have heard from holocaust survivors about the importance of that change, and I believe it is about living up to our words when we say “never again”. Every year, we make that commitment for Holocaust Memorial Day. I hope that on that day, next week, the UK can say that it is acting decisively to give those words substance.
Today we should do the right thing, because if we do not, tomorrow we will certainly be judged. Let us not be found wanting in our duty to act.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
It is a great privilege to be called in this debate. I spoke on Second Reading, but today I am speaking in opposition to the Lords amendments. Before I say anything else, I should make it clear that I am a huge supporter and a friend of Lord Alton, a person of tremendous integrity, and I respect what those who are supporting the amendments are seeking to do, but are we really saying that on genocide—the most heinous crime imaginable—the Government’s trade policy should be reliance on the ability to go to a court? Surely to goodness, if we in this House believe that genocide is occurring, we should be acting a lot more swiftly and a lot more decisively than simply seeking the opinion of judges. It is this Parliament and this House that should be acting, and forcing a Government of any persuasion to take action against any country in the world engaged in genocide.
I urge colleagues to think carefully about what they are seeking to do. What would happen if Parliament decided that genocide was occurring and action had to be taken, but the courts felt that the bar for what determined genocide was not met? What action would be taken then? Would that tie the hands of Government? Would it mean that action, whether on trade or otherwise, was constrained? That would be one of the concerns with the amendment. I do not believe that supporting this measure would, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), give us moral courage. The opposite is true. It would allow some people to say, “It is now up to the courts to decide. It is not a matter for Parliament.” If we believe in moral courage, it is for Parliament to show it, take action, challenge the Government, and hold them to account when we believe that genocide or any other significant human rights abuses are occurring, whether in relation to trade or anything else.
I am also very much reassured by the contribution from the Minister for Trade Policy. As a member of the Select Committee on International Trade, I can say that we will use all the powers available to us—and will seek more powers as time rolls on—to make sure there is scrutiny, and that Parliament carries out its role and looks at continuity or rollover agreements. This is not a matter of accepting continuity agreements as they stand. As those agreements move from being continuity rollover agreements, as they are now in most cases, to something country-specific or trade bloc-specific, this House absolutely needs more of a voice in making sure that nothing in there is detrimental to the British people.
Above all, it is important that this Bill goes through; after all, is it about ensuring that trade takes place and the prosperity of our constituents is protected. More importantly, it is about vulnerable countries around the world—ones that are desperate to trade with the UK in order to enrich their populations and take themselves out of poverty. It is really important that this Bill goes through to allow that to happen. It has my support.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
The Liberal Democrats will today vote to put human rights at the centre of our country’s trade policy. Our party has a long history of leading the way in upholding human rights, from our opposition to South African apartheid to the late Paddy Ashdown’s role in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with colleagues in all parts of this House on that frontline again today.
The world is watching us, and we have a choice: to make a bold, confident statement about our fundamental commitment to human rights or accept this Government’s buccaneering approach to trade, in which effective scrutiny, rights and freedoms are trumped by self-interest. We of course back Lords amendment 2, which requires the Government to conduct due diligence and report to the House on the human rights implications of trade deals, but I wish to focus in particular on Lords amendment 3, the so-called genocide amendment.
Is there anything that blackens humanity’s soul more than genocide? Edmund Burke famously said:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
For too long, in cases of suspected genocide, despite many good men and women raising the alarm, nothing has been exactly what happens, and it is time to change that. I believe that what is happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is genocide. Of course, it is not the only instance of genocide being committed in the world right now, but it is not for me or for this Government to make the legal determination; that is quite rightly a matter for the courts, but the Chinese Government, by virtue of their position, regularly block routes to such determinations, and so we tie ourselves up in knots while the perpetrators of these gross atrocities go largely unchallenged, leaving victims and survivors without justice.
The UK needs a practical mechanism for fulfilling its international legal obligations on genocide, and Lords amendment 3 provides that. It is based on the world as it is, not the world as we hope it to be. Allowing UK judges to make an advisory, preliminary determination is a necessary step if the UK is to lead by example and meet its obligations. That determination can then be taken up in international courts, but we will have made our position clear.
The Government say that they would revoke an agreement well before we reached that stage. If so, why not just accept the amendment? It does not prohibit them from doing that. A number of colleagues have talked about Parliament taking action, challenging Government and standing up on this issue. Well, in 2016, Parliament voted unanimously to recognise the Yazidi genocide, and the Government ignored it. Can the Minister tell us what exactly has changed since then?
This amendment is backed by the International Bar Association, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Muslim Council of Britain and many others, and it has support on both sides of the House. Never again should we wring our hands in horror after the fact, saying we should and could have done more. “Never again”—words we use every Holocaust Remembrance Day, and words that we today have a chance to live up to.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important piece of legislation. I welcome this Trade Bill, and believe it is vital for our country as we move forward as an independent trading nation and navigate the turbulent economic situation that we face as a result of the global coronavirus pandemic. Existing trade agreements and the future ones we can sign will be crucial in our recovery from the coronavirus shock to the economy, and will give us the platform to become a major independent global trader. It will say to the world, “The UK is open for business; come trade with us.”
As I have said in the House on many occasions, it is so important that we uphold our high animal health and welfare and farming standards in existing and future trade deals. As an MP and veterinary surgeon, I was gutted that we were not able to secure that in the Agriculture Act 2020. We missed a real opportunity for the UK to make the powerful statement that we can be a beacon in these areas—to say, “If you wish to trade with us, you must come up to our high standards in animal health and welfare and farming.” I will continue to stand up for the farmers in Penrith and The Border and across Cumbria and the wider UK. We have the best farmers, and produce great food using high standards. We should be very proud of that.
I welcome the fact that the Government listened to colleagues on both sides of the House, to Minette Batters and the NFU, and to the British public, and created the Trade and Agriculture Commission and put it on a statutory footing. However, we can go further with parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, including with the option for the House and relevant Select Committees to amend and block deals, not just delay them. Accordingly, I will be supporting amendments to increase parliamentary scrutiny; to uphold our high animal welfare, food production and environmental standards in trade deals; and to further bolster the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
I am pleased that the Government have repeatedly assured the House that products such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will remain banned in the UK. However, in drafting trade deals, a practical solution would be to reaffirm that ban, and specify other banned products, such as ractopamine-fed pork, excessive use of antimicrobials, use of bovine somatotropin and use of growth promoters. If bans on those products were written into animal welfare chapters in trade deals, that would make it clear that these products are off the table, allowing other acceptable products to be traded. That would drive up animal welfare standards globally. From speaking to prospective trading partners, I know that this approach could work and be acceptable; they would merely exclude these products from shipments to the UK. I hope the Government will continue to listen and move on these issues, which are important to my constituents and folk across the United Kingdom.
I truly believe that we have the potential to be an outward-looking, ethical, progressive country with a trade policy that matches that, and I believe that this Conservative Government have the appetite to do that. Maintaining our high standards in animal health and welfare, farming and food production is pivotal. As this Trade Bill completes its journey, I wish it well.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I understand that we are pressed for time as many Members wish to speak on this important matter, so I will endeavour to be brief.
In the coming months and years, the Government will seek a range of free trade agreements which will profoundly change our country and the lives of our constituents. That is obviously a matter of great interest to my constituents, and I have been inundated in recent weeks with messages urging me to speak in this debate. The view of the people of Birkenhead is clear: they do not want these trade deals to be agreed behind closed doors and signed in secret. They understand that the only way to safeguard our health service, maintain our world-leading food standards and protect our environment is to ensure robust parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals by elected representatives. This is one of the opportunities that this House has to discuss the 10 continuity agreements that the Government have signed since the new year.
The experience of the past few weeks has shown that we simply cannot depend on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to guarantee parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. I am therefore glad that this Bill has returned from the other place amended by Lords Purvis and Stevenson. Their amendments are badly needed and would go a long way to addressing the democratic deficit at the heart of the UK’s trade policy, so I hope that when this debate concludes, Members from across the House will join me in voting for the amendment to guarantee Parliament’s right to debate and approve trade deals.
Ms Ghani
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 3—the genocide amendment. It is the only vote on genocide on the table today. I regret that the compromise amendment that we tabled has been rejected.
Let us remember that we are talking about genocide: the systematic destruction of an entire people. It is a threshold that is so hard to reach because it is the most heinous of all crimes—the forced sterilisation of women, forced labour and re-education camps for hundreds of thousands of children. The Board of Deputies of British Jews stated that it is reminded of the holocaust when it thinks of the plight of the Uyghurs; it cannot get any worse than that.
Members across the House have a very simple choice to make today. We can, by voting in favour of Lord Alton’s amendment 3, empower the UK to fulfil its UN obligations under the genocide convention and ensure that we do not offer advantageous trade deals to genocidal states. It really is that simple. The UN continues to fail to recognise that genocides are happening until it is too late. The UN and the Security Council are in a state of frozen paralysis, held hostage by Russia and China and incapable of holding genocidal states to account.
Against the amendment, the Minister and some of my hon. Friends argue that we should not outsource trade policy to the UK courts, and that the proper place to make decisions about genocide is in international courts. In practice, that means that we have to accept that foreign states will always hold a veto over our determination of genocide. I do not accept that that is taking back control. I do not accept that our courts are not skilled enough to determine breaches of international law. I do not accept that the Bill as drafted gives Parliament sufficient say over whether states that we wish to strike trade deals with are committing genocide.
I understand the concerns about Executive power, and the role of Parliament versus the courts, which is why I tabled an amendment with colleagues in lieu of Lords amendment 3 to address those concerns. Courts will judge, Parliament will opine and Ministers will decide. Yet that amendment was rejected. If the Government believe that this is still an unacceptable derogation of power, what is the alternative and what are the Government’s objections? If we do not pass the amendment today, we will be outsourcing all future decisions on genocide to Russia and China. We now have an independent trade policy after leaving the EU, and Brexit was a vote of hope and optimism and for Britain to play its part in leading the world, so why would we want to use our new-found freedom to trade with states that commit and profit from genocide? Britain is surely better than that.
Tomorrow, Joe Biden becomes the President of the United States, our closest allies. Today is Britain’s moment to blaze a trail and showcase global leadership on trade and international law. We can all talk about our noblest values, but we cannot do so while allowing the vilest of crimes to continue. We have an amendment. We can make a stand against genocide. We can uphold our United Nations obligations and ensure that we do not trade with genocidal states, or we can do nothing, and to do nothing is a counsel of despair.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debate in support of the amendments made in the other place. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) who made a very passionate and convincing case for supporting Lords amendment 3, to which I will refer later.
Lords amendment 1 would introduce vital democratic safeguards into international trade policy by ensuring that the Executive cannot operate unilaterally. It would strengthen the hand of Parliament without undermining the ability of the UK Government to conduct negotiations as they see fit. In reality, the negotiations with the European Union have clearly shown that trade agreements can have far-reaching consequences for people’s everyday lives, from food standards to workers’ rights, from environmental legislation to the impact on our public services. It is to be welcomed then that Lords amendment 1 would require the UK Government to outline their negotiating objectives to Parliament prior to the commencement of any trade negotiations and to secure the agreement of both Houses before a deal is ratified, giving Members of Parliament a meaningful role in setting trade policy.
There was much debate during earlier proceedings of the Bill about how domestic democratic empowerment would strengthen the hand of the UK Government when it comes to trade negotiations. That was certainly my experience during a brief visit to the United States many years ago to scrutinise the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US, where we were reminded that there were certain matters, such as access to food markets, which were non-negotiable for Congress.
Although I support Lords amendment 1, I would have liked to see it go even further in respect of strengthening the role of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments and respective Parliaments. That would not be without precedence. In the EU, every single member state has a veto over its international trade deals as well as sub-national Governments such as Wallonia in Belgium. Although I accept that the UK Government have a direct responsibility for trade policy, I believe that a world of constitutional trouble awaits us unless there are statutory safeguards for the respective countries of the British state. I therefore urge the British Government not only to retain Lords amendment 1, but to go a step further by giving the devolved Parliaments a veto on trade agreements.
I wish briefly to pledge my support for Lords amendment 3—the so-called genocide amendment—which several right hon. and hon. Members have supported this afternoon. Effectively, it couples international trade policy with the promotion of human rights.
Lords amendment 4 would place protections for the NHS on a legislative basis. I also support Lords amendment 6, which sets out to protect a range of regulatory standards such as for food, animal welfare and workers’ rights. Given the increasing noises coming from the Government Benches about a bonfire of standards, acceptance of this amendment would go a long way to allaying fears that our trade policy would be used as a regressive Trojan horse.
I am disappointed to see that the Government are seeking to remove provisions from Lords amendment 9 that strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Again, I ask Ministers to include representatives from the devolved Governments on the commission and introduce scrutiny protocols for the commission with the Welsh Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
A lot in this Trade Bill is to be welcomed, including its reinforced commitments to an agricultural commission, which has been welcomed by the farming sector and the NFU, as well as more scrutiny by the International Trade Committee. In my 10th year as trade envoy for three Prime Ministers, I believe that the Bill is further evidence of our commitment to take forward UK trade and investment across the world as a key part of global Britain, and that is not just an idle slogan, for international trade and investment secures jobs across our country, funds our welfare and social justice, and requires engagement globally.
Today we face the so-called genocide amendment, which would propose to replicate the role of the UN and the International Criminal Court because of issues with how that process is currently functioning. The amendment would—as the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) clearly illustrated when she spoke about both Cameroon and Egypt—be used by many Members who wish to expand the creation of such a court to have a much wider role on human rights issues and their implications for our trade arrangements, including those already signed, as well as those proposed.
Earlier we heard another Opposition Member, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), refer to human rights abuses in Indonesia—a country that has moved further and faster in the development of an open democratic society over the last decade than almost anywhere else I can think of—so let us be in no doubt as to where some would take this amendment. We would find, in an imperfect world, that such a court would be used to limit and constrain our free trade severely, which neither the Labour party nor the SNP was ever in favour of anyway. These are issues that should be decided by our Government and, above all, this Parliament.
Let me briefly address the Uyghur question, for Lords amendment 3 in the first place is aimed squarely at the People’s Republic of China. Many years ago, I almost died in Xinjiang, crossing its great Taklamakan desert. What has happened there for many decades, but with greatly increased severity since 2009, cannot conceivably be supported by anyone in the United Kingdom, but I do not believe that this amendment, if implemented, would achieve anything at all for the Uyghurs or Xinjiang. We should not be asking judges to make political judgments. It is for this place to decide what our relationship with China should be. Over the last decade, we have veered from golden era to worst era in a short period of time. We have to find that balance, and the Trade Bill is not the place for it. It should be part of the integrated review on foreign policy and defence that we await shortly. Meanwhile, I support the Government strongly in opposing an amendment that would subcontract our scrutiny of human rights and of our trade relationships to a new court.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am pleased to see this Bill return to the House in a much better state than when it left. Taken together, the Lords amendments will ensure that our trade deal lives up to the standards that the public rightly expect, both at home and in regard to our international obligations. I will focus my comments on Lords amendment 3 to 5, because they address issues that Vauxhall residents are concerned about.
I heard the Minister’s opening statement, seeking to reassure us that the NHS is safe, but I am not reassured. My late mother, as a sufferer of sickle cell disease, received excellent care from King’s College Hospital, and in later life as a renal dialysis patient. My two children were born locally, in St Thomas’ Hospital—the same hospital that treated our Prime Minister during the height of the coronavirus pandemic. My constituents do not support the creeping marketisation of the NHS and neither do I, so I urge Members to vote to ensure the amendment is protected on our statute book.
Lords amendment 3 focuses on the extreme crime of genocide and obliges the Government to revoke any future trade agreement with countries found responsible for it by the UK High Court. Our trade policy sends a message to the rest of the world about who we are and what we stand for. Surely no one in this House wants us to continue to trade with countries where genocide occurs, so will the Government reconsider their opposition to Lords amendment 3 and support it today?
Mr Djanogly
The Bill was intended to provide a limited scrutiny process for EU trade deals that we wished to roll over for the UK to operate post Brexit. That objective has now largely been achieved, which means that if this Bill is to be of any meaningful scrutiny benefit it must now address scrutiny of future trade deals, including with roll-over countries, and any proposed with countries such as the US, India and China. If we fail to do that, we will have to fall back on a pre-EU, 1920s-based system of allowing limited recourse to debates, whereby a trade deal can be delayed but not stopped and then only on ratification but not before signature. This system, now contained in the CRaG Act, is inadequate for modern needs and requires reform towards a system of pre-signature parliamentary approval, as is used by our trading counterparts such as the US, the EU and Japan.
Lords amendment 1, from Lord Purvis, based on my Report stage new clause 4, is the proposed way of proceeding. It gives Parliament a vote on deals before and after negotiations, and will require the Government to report on any changes to food, health, environment, human rights and equalities standards. It provides for consultation with devolved authorities, but it specifically retains the Government’s prerogative powers to commence, conduct and conclude trade negotiations. Lords amendment 1 has the support of all Opposition parties and many Conservative colleagues in both Houses. It has the support of the NFU, the British Medical Association, many environmental, human rights, food standards and data use groups, business concerns, the CBI and so on.
Against that, Ministers complain about loss of prerogative power, but the existing CRaG Act itself restricts such powers. Even if Ministers were to stick with CRaG, they are the only people saying that CRaG does not need reform. Lord Lansley has provided in Lords amendment 5 that if a relevant Committee asks for a ratification debate, the Government must make time for that to happen. Even that mild, common-sense proposal is rebuffed by Ministers. Ministers suggest that a pre-signature vote would make them look less decisive and weaken their hand, but I would suggest that the opposite is actually the case. In the US, negotiations are often strengthened by the Executive suggesting that Congress simply will not accept such and such a proposal.
As things stand, unbelievably, the UK shall have less legislative scrutiny of trade deals than when we were a member of the European Union. Surely that is not what taking back control was all about. The power of approval that was given to MEPs now needs to come back here to Parliament, not to be forgotten about by Ministers. Having proper scrutiny votes will go towards establishing the UK as a modern, democratic, confident international trading nation. We should be embracing that by supporting the Purvis amendment and by voting no to the Government motion to disagree to it.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) [V]
In the House in November 2020, the Secretary of State give me an assurance from the Dispatch Box that Northern Ireland would have full access to any trade agreements struck by the United Kingdom, and that they would apply to Northern Ireland in the same manner as they do to other parts of the United Kingdom. It is of paramount importance that the Government clarify again the Northern Ireland protocol, which has seriously undermined the promises made by the Prime Minister of unfettered access to our internal markets between all parts of the United Kingdom. I have serious concerns that any future trade deal will not deliver the level access that the Secretary of State promised.
I would warmly welcome a commitment today from the Government that Northern Ireland will have full and equal access to the trade deals of the United Kingdom. As an example, I want to mention our steel industry, which is predominantly engaged in export. It contributes £3.2 billion to the Northern Ireland economy in transport, manufacturing and engineering. Much of its product has to come from GB and from mainland UK. Unfortunately, tariffs of 25% were going to be imposed on steel. We need clarity on all aspects of the additional costs that are going to be given to Northern Ireland businesses in relation to the additional paperwork that will be required because we have not left on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom.
A major player is our agrifood industry, which contributes about £1.5 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. We welcome the support from the House to ensure that our high standards are protected. The United Kingdom leads the world in food standards and in welfare production of food, and we want to ensure that those standards are not lowered, and that other parts of the EU come up to the standards that we require.
On Lord Alton’s amendment, we as a party will be supporting Lords amendment 3 on the basis that we believe it will deal with issues such as genocide and those countries that turn a blind eye to human rights issues. It is vital that we have some pre-emptory norms set within the Bill to ensure that we can deal with those in any future trade deals that are brought forward. Northern Ireland basically has not been given the opportunity to benefit from the trade deals that the United Kingdom will benefit from through leaving the EU.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I know we have had some problems getting through to you, Damian, but I am glad to see that the communications are now working.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
I will be speaking to Lords amendment 7, tabled by Baroness Kidron, which seeks to protect the rights of children online with regard to the use of their data and the design of services targeted at them. This has been enshrined in UK legislation through the age-appropriate design code—something that Baroness Kidron has been a tireless campaigner for. That world-leading piece of legislation is already influencing the decisions of technology companies on how they design and create tools for young people to use online.
In opening the debate earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy told the House that the Government’s forthcoming online harms Bill was the correct place to ensure the internet safety of children and all UK citizens. However, I understand why Baroness Kidron moved to insert Lords amendment 7 in the Bill, to ensure that those rights cannot be traded away in the small print of a future agreement. We can easily see how rights granted in international trade agreements on how companies can use data, where they can processes it and whether they can be subject to an independent audit of their algorithms could undermine the ability to create and enforce a robust duty of care regime on technology companies to meet their obligations to tackle online harms. In fact, in the trade negotiations between the UK Government and the outgoing Trump Administration in America, the US negotiators have sought to do just that. President Trump’s Government have sought to persuade the UK to trade away digital and data rights as part of securing a deal, as they have done in their agreements with Canada, Mexico and Japan. That would clearly be unacceptable, and I am pleased that Ministers continue to reassure me and others that they would not allow that to happen. Indeed, the UK has objected to those provisions being inserted in the trade agreement. A first positive step from the incoming Biden Administration will be to remove those clauses from the negotiating text.
It is important, though, for us to consider how the House will scrutinise detailed trade negotiations involving data and citizens’ and children’s rights online. I would not want to see trade agreements becoming the mechanism through which domestic legislation is undermined. In the agricultural and food sectors, the Government have now given a particular role in statute to the Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise Parliament on the impact of future trade deals on food standards and food safety. The Information Commissioner’s Office should have the same role on a formal basis to give advice to Parliament on the impact of draft trade agreements with regard to child protection, data sharing and data privacy.
A consumer can make a decision about whether they want to buy goods or not, depending on how they are made. Governments can enter into trade agreements to seek to reduce tariffs on particular goods to boost trade, create jobs and lower costs to consumers. All of those actions can be good things, but the impact of getting trade agreements wrong on data privacy and protection can be hard to see. It is hard to see how someone is exploiting a loophole in a trade agreement to gain improper access to someone’s data and to use it in ways to which they would not have consented. That is why it is so important that we safeguard digital rights online.
I will not be voting against the Government tonight on these amendments, but I ask the Minister to consider a formal role for the Information Commissioner to advise Parliament on future trade agreements, and in particular to make sure that they comply with our data protection laws and the age-appropriate design code, to keep children safe online.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
I will first talk to Lords amendment 1, pertaining to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill provides inadequate statutory procedures for parliamentary scrutiny and ratification of trade agreements, and Lords amendment 1 seeks to remedy that. It also ensures parliamentary engagement and scrutiny during the negotiation process and consultations with devolved authorities and means that the Government are obliged to seek approval from both Houses of Parliament before becoming a signatory to any trade deal. It means that colleagues across the House can scrutinise any agreements that impact on our constituents or Britain’s reputation and standing on the international stage.
The amendment is important as it ensures that an independent impact assessment is carried out on any proposed trade deal on human rights and equalities, employment and labour and the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, among a whole host of other important markers.
On the back of that, I am also proud to give my support to Lords amendment 2, which ensures that we do not embark on trade agreements with countries that have committed grave human rights abuses. By creating a triple-lock barrier against such agreements, the amendment ensures that we will keep our international and national commitments to respect human rights, guaranteeing that we do not enter trade negotiations with those who seek to undermine human rights principles through actions such as unlawful detention and the unlawful killing of citizens.
Lords amendment 3 sets out in clear terms the UK’s determination to abide by human rights principles, standing firmly against the grave human rights abuse of genocide more specifically. By voting against that amendment, the Government will showcase that a country committing genocide is not of any consequence for the UK when seeking trade deals, which ultimately makes us complicit. The amendment ensures that we do not do business with countries that have a low regard for human life.
I also speak in support of Lords amendment 4, which seeks to protect our NHS and NHS data and safeguards our NHS, particularly in the event of a trade deal with the United States, which is of the utmost importance. The amendment protects NHS patient data against private healthcare corporations. The amendment is crucial, as it prevents the Government from making deals with those who want to undermine the Government’s ability to deliver free, universal public health and care services. It sends a strong message that our NHS is not for sale and that this Government are committed to respecting and protecting the long legacy of providing free healthcare to all at the point of use.
Finally, I also support Lords amendment 7, which focuses on protecting children from online harm. The Government have gone so far with the online harms White Paper to outline the actions they are determined to take to protect young people online. The amendment provides another opportunity for the Government to protect young people when they use the internet, particularly when the Government are seeking to embark on trade negotiations with countries that have poor or relaxed online protections.
Sir Edward Leigh
I think we need to be far more robust about calling out genocide when it takes place. I can do no better than quote our present Prime Minister, writing in the Financial Times in 2016, when he criticised the Foreign Office because
“for some baffling reason the Foreign Office still hesitates to use the term genocide”
about the attacks on the Yazidis. In our own lifetimes, we have seen appalling acts of violence based purely on people’s ethnicity. We need to be robust.
I was originally attracted to the amendments, particularly as they come from good friends such as Lord Forsyth and Lord Alton. I am grateful to the Minister for having spoken to me earlier today, and to his colleague in the Foreign Office. I listened to every word the Minister said. Although I was attracted to the Alton amendment, I now think there are serious faults with it. It is true that our efforts to name and shame on genocide and to act on it have been stymied in the international courts. On the one hand, we have said that it is for the courts to decide. On the other, because of the power of veto of major players on the world stage, international courts will not act.
We have to remember that we are Members of Parliament. We are elected. We are the high court of Parliament. It is for elected officials, not court officials, to decide trade policy. Any other approach would be utterly chaotic.
I am a barrister. I know that when we accuse somebody in a court, the defendant has a right to turn up. Do we really think that, if we accused any country—China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Egypt—they would agree for a moment to send counsel to defend their position? Look at it from our point of view. Some people around the world think that our human rights record, for instance in Ireland, is not that great. What would we think if we were going to do a trade deal with somebody and some group took us to court in, say, Japan? Would we ever turn up in some Japanese court and defend our position? No, we would think that that would be a fundamental denial of the supremacy of this Parliament. So I do not think that the court route is the right approach.
I listened to the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and was quite alarmed by what she said. We all know that what is happening to the Uyghurs is quite appalling. We suspect that it is genocide, and we think that if there is any sort of trade deal with China we should question it very closely. But then she started talking about other countries. She started talking about Egypt, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Where would it all stop? Any trade deal could be bound up for months—years—in the courts, and any group could take the Government to court.
I voted for Brexit to take back control. I am a free trader; I believe in international free trade. I want these free trade deals, but there is one very important point that I hope the Minister will address when he winds up. There is a lacuna in parliamentary scrutiny of these trade deals; there is no doubt about it. It is simply far too late to conduct a trade deal, agree it and then at the very last minute send it to the International Trade Committee. Sometimes there is no opportunity for Parliament to discuss it at all.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), a former International Trade Secretary, said, let us have a proper parliamentary scrutiny system so that as we embark on a trade deal the Select Committee can consider it in detail at the start and can report back to Parliament, so that we can debate it and give either instructions or guidance to Government. That is the way the Government should proceed, and I commend that approach to them this evening.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
I support the amendments from the other place, particularly Lords amendment 1, 2, 4 and 6. I am conscious of time, so I shall restrict my points.
First, we have to put this in context. We are in the lee of Brexit and the trade deal that has followed from that, which has taken us into new territory. Speed will be required because of the urgency of the situation. We must try to minimise difficulties and maximise employment opportunities. What we are seeing at ports is shameful, frankly, and we cannot have that continuing or being replicated. But some things have to remain constant and some standards have to be maintained. As other Members have correctly said, parliamentary scrutiny is essential. This is a democracy, and that deal fundamentally affects each and every one of our people, so we have to ensure that Parliament is able to properly scrutinise it.
Secondly, we have to ensure that food and animal welfare standards are maintained. We are rightly proud of those high standards and have always adhered to them here, which must be maintained. Thirdly, it is absolutely essential that the national health service’s being free at the point of delivery and predicated on being a service delivered by a public duty, rather than by private practices, is maintained. We have to ensure the integrity of the NHS and ensure that it is not undermined.
Putting that into context, we have to remember that we are in a situation where urgency is to the forefront, but we are also at a time when we have to negotiate trade deals that are by their very nature complicated. A trade deal with the United States will be essential, given the nature and scale of the country and its importance to us. However, let us remember that the United States may be the home of capitalism and free trade, but it is deeply protective of its own sectors and industry. When it comes to a trade deal with the UK, the US will be looking after its interests, companies and people, and we have to ensure that ours are not undermined as a result. Let us also remember that US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross made it quite clear—this will continue under President Biden’s Administration—that Brexit was an opportunity to eat the UK’s lunch, which means to have a go at our food and agriculture standards and to undermine the circumstances of our protecting the NHS from privatisation, so we have to ensure that steps are taken.
It is always the situation that all Governments have Executive creep—that was no doubt the situation even in the Government I served in another Parliament and institution. Governments tend to do that by nature. However, in the United Kingdom over recent generations, it has certainly become a hell of a lot worse, which requires to be addressed. The nadir was the shameful absence of opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill for Brexit. It may have had to be delivered in the last few days before Brexit, but the almost total absence of that opportunity cannot be allowed to be replicated, because at the end of the day, in my constituency, high food and agriculture standards are essential. We make premium products there, and we cannot have a race to the bottom that would see our own industry undermined. We have to protect and cherish our health service. We welcome the steps it has taken on coronavirus. We have seen it hollowed out with privatisation south of the border. We cannot allow those two areas of our society and economy to be sold out in a trade deal delivered to ensure that the United States protects its own vested interests.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Gary Sambrook, for the information of the House and those contributing from outside the Chamber, Minister Greg Hands will respond to the debate at 5.39 pm, and the first Division will be called at 5.54 pm. I understand that there may be several Divisions thereafter.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I am pleased to see the Bill making progress through the House today. It is important to reflect for a moment on the backdrop of the Trade Bill and why we are where we are. Ever since 2016 when we had the referendum, we have constantly heard from Opposition Members that much of this was never going to be possible, that in some way the world would overlook the United Kingdom and reach across us to the European Union and so on. We are making good progress, and it is because of the imagination and determination of our Prime Minister, this Government, the Secretary of State and departmental Ministers that we have secured 63 deals across the world, covering £885 billion in trade. These are really good things that will create opportunities for people in all our constituencies up and down the country, which we can all be proud of.
However, we cannot be proud of the tone that this debate has taken over many years. For as long as I have been alive, there have been allegations that the Conservative party and this Government were going to in some way sell off the NHS, and we see that again today in some of these amendments, which shape the argument as if some Government estate agent is outside a hospital banging in a for sale sign, or that we are taking Donald Trump around A&E and he is deciding what wallpaper he wants to put up. All this has always been nonsense. We see it all the time in the opportunities Members have in Opposition day debates, which they use to spread fear and misinformation. It is damaging to our politics because those allegations cause fear, spread anxiety, arouse anger and stoke suspicion in our politics. That is not healthy. It is unfounded, it is wrong, it is irresponsible and it is dangerous to our democracy.
The all-party parliamentary group on trade and export promotion, of which I am co-chair with Lord Waverley from the other place, has been talking to businesses and consumers about how we want global Britain to be shaped over the coming years. We are clear from the conversations we have had that our global trade strategy should be green. It should be about supporting biodiversity and reducing waste. It should be about promoting opportunities for sustainable, high-quality jobs for people across the United Kingdom. It should be about supporting fair and sustainable trade. It should be about capitalising on the digital economy, and it should promote sustainable investment and finance. All those things are the way in which Britain can stand tall in the world, be a beacon for high standards across the world and ensure we create the conditions in which people have the opportunities to prosper, to trade and, most importantly, to get the jobs that, as we come out of the covid pandemic, many of our constituents will need. The Government are creating the foundations for a fine opportunity and I wholly support them in their endeavours today.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
The amendments we are discussing are incredibly important. Amendment 1 would provide vital parliamentary scrutiny obligations preventing the UK from signing a free trade agreement unless a draft of the agreement had been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is immensely important when we consider protecting human rights, environmental standards, animal welfare regulations and protecting the NHS as a public service. Those are all matters of immense importance to my constituents. The trade justice movement has highlighted that the provisions of the amendment offer a considerable improvement on the level of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals in the UK, and that currently our processes lag behind those of the US, the EU and other countries.
Amendment 4 would provide for protection against the undermining of the ability of Government to deliver free and universal public health and care services. That is extremely important, particularly given the Government’s very clear agenda to privatise the national health service and put it in the hands of profit-making companies, instead of protecting it as a public service, as they should. It would also provide for the protection of employment rights for public sector employees and those working in publicly funded health and care sectors. The fact that the Government will not commit in legislation to protect our NHS is worrying for us all. It is time for Members across this House to show their support for the NHS and those who work in it by voting for the amendment.
There is also immense concern about environmental standards and animal welfare. A report published in November by the Future British Standards Coalition, which includes representatives from Sustain, Compassion in World Farming and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, warned that
“the UK government has already weakened protections around food imports and is failing to consider the impact of trade on public health, animal welfare and the environment with adequate rigour or transparency.”
Amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to establish a code of practice setting out how a Minister should maintain standards in certain areas, including the environment, animal welfare and food standards, where they are likely to be affected by a proposed international trade agreement. A National Farmers Union petition that states that the Government
“should ensure that all food eaten in the UK…is produced in a way that matches the high standards of production expected of UK farmers”
has been signed by more than 1 million people.
Trade agreements should contain commitments on the protection of human rights. I believe that all Members across the House should support amendment 2, which proposes a triple barrier against trade agreements with countries that abuse human rights. They should also support amendment 3, which would provide the power to revoke bilateral international trade agreements if they found that a signatory to that agreement had committed genocide as defined in the genocide convention. Trading is global, and so are our responsibilities. I believe our treaties should respect that.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
I wish to make some brief comments about three of the amendments, including amendment 3 on genocide. I have listened to some excellent speeches from colleagues across the House who have made a clear and passionate case for the amendment, and I agree, of course, that states that engage in genocide must face serious consequences for their actions, including in trade. In addition to arguments about the separation of powers, which have already been made, I have serious concerns about the practicalities of amendment 3 and about the amendment in lieu.
The amendment refers to a preliminary ruling by the High Court, but it is not clear what that means in this context, or how authoritative it would be. Neither is it clear how the court would deal with the applications that are envisaged. The amendment sets out who could bring an action, but not who the respondent would be. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said earlier, it is hard to see the respondent being the foreign Government in question. Would it be the UK Government instead, and if so, how would they present a case about the behaviour of a foreign Government, of whom they are likely to have been critical? All that needs to be clarified before such a change in legislation could be contemplated.
Amendment 7 deals with the protection of children online. I cannot support the amendment as drafted, because I think its drafting contains the seeds of potential conflict between current and future parliamentary judgments, and potentially between parliamentary and ministerial authority. I also think that the concerns it expresses are more relevant to trade deals that are not covered by the Bill, although I entirely support and share those concerns.
The Government have made important and welcome progress in their plans to reduce and remove so-called online harms, and offer real protection to children and others from harassment, abuse, manipulation, and misery. It is that progress that Baroness Kidron, who tabled the amendment in the other place, and others, are determined to defend, and they are entirely right to do so. It may well need defending when negotiations on a trade deal with the USA in particular begin. Although I welcome what the Minister said about the Government’s determination not to bargain away the progress we have made, I hope he will recognise Parliament’s determination to reinforce that, and engage further on how that can be done, before we move on to discuss other trade deals in detail. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said about that, especially his suggestion about how Parliament might benefit from the assessment by the Information Commissioner’s Office on the digital aspects of any deal.
That brings me to amendment 1 on the approval of trade agreements in Parliament, with which I have considerable sympathy. I take the Minister’s point that the trade deals covered by the Bill may not be those where parliamentary scrutiny is most important, but the CRaG processes that he relies on were not designed for post-Brexit Britain, or for the trade deals of breadth and ambition to which the Government rightly aspire. For those, Parliament needs more time and information than CRaG currently allows us in order to do our job of scrutiny properly. The Government need to think further on that, and do more before those broader trade deals are negotiated.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
We are experiencing a number of challenges with the outworkings of Brexit, not least here in Northern Ireland, and that is, in part, due to the failure to progress and confront some of the realities of the situation. That is followed through by the fact that the trade deal is in place without this Bill, and there is also an environmental governance gap, due to the failure to pass the Environment Bill before the end of what passed for the transition period. Many see that as a reflection of the Government’s priorities regarding environmental and other protections.
I had the opportunity to speak on Second Reading of the Trade Bill in May and, at that point, set out the SDLP’s concerns about the loss of rights, standards and protections that were enjoyed by everybody in the UK as members of the EU, as well as our disappointment about the lack of scrutiny and oversight provided for by the Bill. I do not want to rehash all those as well, but I raised specifically the potentially regressive impact that the Bill might have on food standards and on the NHS, which is an issue of great concern to my constituents in south Belfast. Several of the amendments before us today would assist greatly in protecting and maintaining those standards. I say again that warm words and assurances, and protesting too much, as I think we heard in a number of previous speeches, do not give reassurance to the public if opportunities are not taken to place protections in law. If the Government are serious about protecting the environment, workers and the NHS, they will have no issue in legislating to put those protections into law.
On scrutiny, we heard a lot from Vote Leave about taking back control and about the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, but we see in practice in this Bill much control being put into the hands of a small number of Cabinet Ministers, and very little in the way of parliamentary oversight. The UK Government’s scrutiny processes and, therefore, democratic legitimacy for trade deals fall far behind those of, for example, the US and the EU. If Brexit was an issue of accountability for many people, I believe that this approach is further storing up dissatisfaction with the political process.
Amendments 8 and 9 provide a good opportunity for the UK to ensure that trade policy is in line with other international obligations on not entering into trade deals with those committing human rights abuses and genocide, and we very much welcome this. On the issue of Northern Ireland, trade deals and non-discrimination —that is, amendment 26—the SDLP has been very clear before and since 2016 that we do not wish, and have never wished, to see any barriers to trade from Northern Ireland north-south or east-west. That is what we enjoyed pre-Brexit, as well as trading arrangements with the vast majority of the planet, but we are now restricted by the need to manage the problems that have been foisted upon us by an ill-thought-out Brexit. The Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol exists precisely to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the risks and consequences of a hard border. We therefore have to take a very cautious approach to anything that might inadvertently or deliberately undermine that. It remains the case—I will finish with this point—that the higher the UK’s commitments to the standards that we maintain here in Northern Ireland, the softer the barriers to trade in the Irish sea will be.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in such an important debate this afternoon and to hear such eloquent arguments on the merits of the amendments that we are considering today, and I have listened intently to the arguments on both sides.
Last week, in the debate on global Britain, we debated in this House how we wanted this country and its values to be a beacon of hope in this dark world—a country that champions free trade, the rule of law, human rights and democracy. It is these values, which everyone in the House shares, that are driving right hon. and hon. Friends in supporting Lord Alton’s amendment or amendment (a), backed by colleagues this afternoon. Nobody in this House or beyond would ever support this country doing a trade deal with a country engaging in acts of genocide. The United Kingdom continues to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations, including under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, and our position on that will never change.
We all look at what is happening in Xinjiang and the plight of the Uyghur Muslims with increasing alarm. In response, the UK has announced an ambitious package of measures to help make sure that no British organisation, whether Government or private sector, is inadvertently contributing to human rights violations against the Uyghur Muslims or other minorities in the region. On 6 October, the UK and 38 other countries made a statement at the UN Third Committee expressing deep concern about the situation. This House and this country therefore cannot be accused of not being aware of or not taking seriously the issues in China at the present time.
However, the amendments pose a serious threat to the separation of powers that this country has observed for hundreds of years. It is this place, and it is the Executive who are held to account in this place, that are responsible for developing trade agreements and the operation of our foreign policy. It is really important that we separate the issues here. Is there increasing alarm over whether genocide is occurring in Xinjiang alongside horrific acts of slave labour and forced sterilisation? Yes; that is not in question. Should we allow the Court power over British trade and foreign policy? No. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stresses that the Court would only be able to make a preliminary decision, it would be impossible—rightly, might I say—to ignore that decision. Therefore, we would be de facto giving powers to the High Court.
I would be ashamed if it took a decision from the High Court to determine that a country we were looking at doing a trade deal with was engaging in acts of genocide for us to revisit whether it would be the right thing to do. I have faith—faith borne out by the recent examples of what we have done and how we have acted towards states that do not share our values—that the British Government today and in the future will do the right thing, and that if the day comes that they do not, this House will hold them to account and rightly stop them. That is how parliamentary democracy works. We do not offload or subcontract our moral compass to judges in the High Court. We are elected to take tough decisions.
I am against these amendments, but I am for tougher action against China and other Governments around the world who are committing human rights abuses. I have spoken about my support for the Bill before, so I will not take up the House’s time by going over the same ground again. The Bill has been improved since it first came before Parliament, not least with the creation and putting on a statutory footing of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which puts the voice of farmers, who were concerned about the effect on standards of future trade deals, at the heart of the Government’s trade policy. I hope we can now allow this very good Bill—a Bill on which the Government have listened and acted and which they have improved—to proceed.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased that this Bill has returned from the other place in a much stronger form, with an enhanced role for parliamentary scrutiny, and I will be opposing any attempts to water down those changes today. If I had a bit more time, I would talk about protecting NHS patient data, protecting children from online harms and, of course, the genocide amendments, all of which have been raised with me by concerned constituents, as well as the need for a triple barrier against trade agreements with countries that abuse human rights. I am pleased that so many other speakers have more than done justice to those issues, in particular raising concerns about appalling human rights abuses in China.
Only last week, we saw shocking reports about the connection between many global brands and the forced labour camps in Xinjiang. This is something we simply should not tolerate in our business relationships. In this speech, I will focus—not for the first time—on another issue that constituents have contacted me about in droves: the need to ensure that we do not bargain away our existing environmental and food standards in the heated pursuit of new trading relationships.
The damage we have done to our trading relationship with our closest partners in the EU with the flimsy Brexit deal last month puts the UK in an even weaker negotiating position, but we need to stand firm and, for the sake of our health and the planet, refuse to sacrifice British standards. The Government have continually claimed that they will not allow UK food and environmental standards to be ripped up but have still fought every attempt to put such protections into law, despite massive public support for them. Principles-based parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, impact assessments and a robust Trade and Agriculture Commission are essential if we are to hold the Government to account.
It is not just about protecting our own standards. We ought to be using what leverage we have in trade negotiations to put pressure on other countries to raise their standards where they are low. If we import and consume food, or if our companies are involved in its financing or production, from countries where land degradation and the abuse of animals and workers are commonplace, we are complicit. Deforestation in Brazil is one such example. Current Government proposals to eliminate illegal deforestation from UK supply chains simply do not go far enough—not when there are Governments such as Bolsonaro’s in Brazil, who have given the green light to it. The World Wide Fund for Nature found that 43 million hectares—an area the size of California—was lost in deforestation fronts such as the Amazon in the 13 years between 2004 and 2017. If business continues as usual, by 2030 we will have lost another 170 million hectares.
Put simply, I do not trust the Government to raise such issues in anything more than a tokenistic way when it comes to negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with the likes of Brazil. When I asked about that in the Chamber last week, the answer that I got confirmed that. That is why parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals is so important, and why I will be voting for these amendments.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
There are several amendments to be considered today, but I propose to speak only to Lords amendment 3—the so-called genocide amendment—which I have particularly considered.
After Brexit, the country appeared to divide into two camps: those who saw Brexit as a problem to be solved and those who saw it as an opportunity to be embraced. I am firmly in the latter camp. We can now develop our own trade policy in a way that we have not for some time. It also gives us the opportunity to export our values —if hon. Members will excuse the phrase—as well as our goods and services.
I hope that Britain’s trade policy in the 21st century will be like that of the 19th—the Britain of the West Africa Squadron, unafraid to stand up for what we believe in around the world. However, we have to take the world as it is. Not all countries are western-style democracies, and as we stride the world at large it is inevitable that we will want to trade with some countries that are perhaps not quite the same as ours, but there are obviously limits. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda described genocide as
“the crime of all crimes”.
Rightly, this country will not seek to make trade arrangements with countries that commit it.
In that light, Lords amendment 3 has much to commend it. It could apply to any country, but discussion of the amendment so far has centred on the People’s Republic of China and its treatment of ethnic minorities. As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I have become much more aware of and interested in China’s activities, and the amendment would send a very powerful message to China that her actions are unacceptable.
I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are minded to support the amendment, and I applaud the work of the Board of Deputies, the Muslim Council of Britain and others that have raised the profile of the amendment and the surrounding discussion. However, lawmaking is not just about sending messages; it is also about creating a set of workable rules. In that respect, I regrettably have some doubts about the Lords amendment.
A free trade agreement is likely to take the form of a treaty that has been through Parliament under the procedure set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The amendment would effectively revoke a trade agreement on a ruling from a High Court judge. That introduces a judicial element that may or may not be desirable, but needs to be considered at greater length and very carefully. Is it desirable that a judge considers an international agreement that has already been considered and approved by Parliament? If a free trade agreement is being considered with a country that is suspected of committing genocide, which I suggest is a situation that is not going to arise, is this House not capable of considering that and voting it down? Is a court able to amass the relevant evidence to decide whether genocide has occurred? Can the Government or Parliament not do so? Perhaps the Government are better placed to do those things.
I am not sure how the amendment might work in terms of our international law obligations. Would our domestic legislation be overturned while our international obligations, which the trading partner could still enforce, were still in place?
I have not fully addressed those questions in my own mind, and it is for those reasons that, with considerable regret, I do not feel that I can back the amendment as it stands. I urge the Government to consider this matter carefully, use this amendment as a first draft and turn it into a workable safeguard to ensure that, in the future, Britain continues to hold our head high on the international stage.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords Alton and Collins, the driving purpose of which is to root our foreign and trade policies in the values and principles that our country and our constituents hold dear.
According to the British Foreign Policy Group’s polling, more than eight in 10 of the UK public believe that the UK should sometimes or always lead the way on global issues, while across this House we know that if global Britain is to mean anything, our country must have the moral authority to lead by example. That authority will be fatally undermined if we end up sacrificing our ethics and values on the altar of tawdry trade deals with genocidal states.
The term “genocide” evokes harrowing memories of Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and, of course, the holocaust. If ever there is a time for Britain to show global leadership and stand up for our values, it is at the very moment when we witness those early, chilling signs of genocide. On that note, the nation was collectively aghast when we saw Andrew Marr show the Chinese ambassador a video of shaven-headed Uyghur Muslims being forcibly loaded on to trains, the video accompanied by moving accounts of women being sterilised and the horrors of forced labour camps. The Jewish community knows all too well that comparisons with the holocaust should be used sparingly, so when the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews writes to the Prime Minister to draw parallels between events in Xinjiang and Nazi Germany and then calls for the Prime Minister to support the Alton amendment, the Government must surely take note.
I turn now to the profoundly misleading and disingenuous arguments that the Government are deploying against the Alton amendment. First, the Foreign Secretary claims that the amendment is unconstitutional because it would allow the High Court to frustrate trade agreements. That is nonsense, as it has been the settled policy of UK Government for decades that judges, not politicians, rule on genocide; so the Alton amendment is entirely consistent with that principle. The only difference is that we would be empowering, through that amendment, our esteemed British judges to make such a ruling, rather than the judges in an international court.
Secondly, the Foreign Secretary claims that the evidentiary bar for genocide is simply too high, and that the Government would set their own threshold far lower, by which to determine whether the UK would be entering into trade deals. Well, fine—then the Government should cease their attempts to defeat the amendment, as the amendment should surely be seen as purely an insurance policy against future backsliding. Moreover, if it is indeed the case that the Government are seeking to adopt an even more progressive approach, then Conservative MPs should also be supporting the Collins amendment, which rightly sets out why the UK Government should apply a human rights assessment to all negotiations.
Thirdly, the Foreign Secretary argues that the amendment would give rise to vexatious claims—again, disingenuous nonsense. The High Court has a well-established process for filtering vexatious claims out of its system. For far too long, the international community has allowed authoritarian regimes to hold the international human rights legal order hostage. Russia and China wield their vetoes cynically and ruthlessly, and that is why the UK Government have never succeeded in recognising a genocide while it is ongoing since the Nuremberg trials, 75 years ago.
If this House votes with the courage of its convictions tonight, we will be grasping the opportunity to lead the world in standing up to those regimes and breaking the stranglehold that they currently have on our system. Let us show some global leadership. Let us back Alton and Collins this evening. Let us send a message to the world about the type of country we really are.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I believe this is a good Bill, which we should pass in its current form, but I want to address the amendments raised most frequently by my constituents—Lords amendments 1 to 3.
I have confidence in the robustness of our system of scrutiny. We have been absolutely clear that in all our negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards, and every Government announcement has been entirely consistent on that. The Food Standards Agency maintains rigorous standards. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 transfers existing EU import requirements on to the UK statute book. We have the power of Parliament, where MPs will be able to scrutinise and effectively veto future trade deals under the CRaG procedure, and we have the Trade and Agriculture Commission, with newly extended powers putting it on a statutory footing.
Secondly, I am, of course, appalled by the reports from Xinjiang, but the amendment on genocide will do nothing to help the Uyghur people. I simply say that the UK has a long and proud history of extending and protecting human rights, and promoting our values abroad. A well-intentioned amendment to bring human rights within the scope of this Bill would seriously compromise the separation of powers. I do not want to see judicial intervention in legitimate trade and foreign policy, particularly in the context of our existing checks and balances. I believe in this Parliament, and in its duty and commitment to determine appropriate sanctions and in what circumstances we conduct trade negotiations.
Most vital is what the Bill enables in its current form. It provides a fantastic platform for growth. It is my firm belief that to realise the potential of global Britain, we need to recognise the role of this place in that endeavour. We do not create growth, but we can enable it. Throughout the pandemic, we have relied on frontline heroes—our doctors, nurses, care workers, police and shop workers, to get us through—but in the next stage of recovery it will be the wealth creators, business people and entrepreneurs who will take us forward, leading our recovery into long-term prosperity. What they need is a dynamic and investable playing field open to them. To think differently, innovate and grow, we need the freedom to trade.
This Bill has the power to transform Britain’s economy by going further and faster in the sectors of the future. It will not be establishment banks and oil companies dominating the FTSE 100 in 20 years’ time, but it will be the innovation sector, digital, data and artificial intelligence that creates the most new wealth, and we can enable Britain now to become the global hub for growth sectors for the future. I will not be supporting today’s amendments, because I am truly confident in the levels of scrutiny that exist and I am confident that this Parliament and Britain’s moral compass do not rely on judicial intervention. Most of all, I believe in the global Britain that this Bill represents and realises.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Whenever this Bill comes before this House my inbox is the same, as I suspect every Member’s is; once again, constituents have emailed en masse to express their support for many of the amendments being debated today. From this correspondence, it is clear that my constituents do not want to compromise on standards; that they fear for the future of the NHS under any US trade deal; and that they want more scrutiny, not less. However, what is clear more than anything else is that they do not trust this Government. Although the Government have said that our farmers will not be undercut, that the NHS is safe and that human rights are non-negotiable, my constituents simply do not believe them. There is a very simple reason for that: although the Government are happy to make promises, they will not commit them to law. People have suffered too many U-turns, too many failures and too many excuses from this Government to believe them any longer. My constituents want legal guarantees, not empty ones.
The incredible thing is that these Lords amendments cover issues on which the vast majority of this House would claim to agree, yet the Government will today vote down a series of vital protections. Who can argue that a trade deal with a state such as Egypt, whose Government jail and execute religious minorities and human rights activists, should not contain iron-clad human rights clauses? If we are to be a country that promotes and defends human rights, we should make a stand and not do business with those who seek to destroy those protections. A faction in government is proud of its record and would welcome scrutiny, yet not surprisingly this Government want to hide from it. It is time that this Government recognised that MPs are paid to debate important issues, make decisions and represent our constituents. Why are they so afraid to do so?
Finally, there is the issue of standards. Whether it is food standards, environmental standards or labour standards, people are worried. These standards have been fought for in this country and the EU, and we do not want them undermined or undercut. It would be devastating for our farmers and damaging to already struggling businesses.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
Alongside many Conservative colleagues, I have had a very difficult decision to make. Rebellion against one’s own Government is torturous, but in this case I feel compelled. I have no doubt but that it is the right thing to do.
The United Kingdom has a proud history as a staunch defender of human rights, champion of the oppressed and celebrant of diversity and freedoms everywhere. The anti-genocide amendment is our chance to continue this proud tradition and help protect innocent lives from evildoers. The amendment creates a necessary mechanism by which the United Kingdom is able to uphold its international obligations regarding genocide, and safeguards us from being complicit, through commerce and trade, with genocidal regimes. I have spent many years in places scarred by war, slavery and genocide. What I witnessed moulded me, and I swore I would do all I could to inhibit such suffering.
Critics of the amendment note that a designation of genocide should be determined only by international courts. We all know that there are certain states against which a verdict of genocide is inconceivable, due to the nature and limitations of the international legal system, its courts and base Realpolitik. We must not allow those who commit crimes against humanity, such as genocide, to be protected by the deficiencies of our evolving international system. We must be prepared to act unilaterally when required and lead by example.
Encouraging states to uphold their international human rights obligations should be the keystone on which we build global Britain. As a newly independent, sovereign United Kingdom, now is the time to re-establish ourselves as a global moral authority. The best way to do this is by standing up for our values and employing innovative thinking, as exemplified in the genocide amendment.
I have heard several hon. Members express concern about our courts determining whether there has been a genocide. I find it curious that international courts are not objected to, yet our domestic ones are. Other Members have suggested that Parliament alone should determine genocide; I remind them that this runs against long-established UK policy. I also ask Members to consider that in 2016, this House unanimously voted to recognise the Yazidi genocide, but the Government took no action, stating that genocide recognition is for the courts.
I loathe rebellion and would go to great lengths to avoid it, but there are occasions when it is simply impossible to reconcile personal conviction with party loyalty. The genocide amendment is not perfect, but it provides a real opportunity for a new beginning for a re-imagined foreign policy. I urge all in this House to support the genocide amendment and find themselves on the right side of history.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) in saying that whenever this Bill comes to the Chamber, the interest and concern from my constituents is huge.
I will start by talking about amendment 4 and the NHS. So much of the past year has been about protecting the NHS. It is fair to say that we all appreciate the NHS more than ever before, and this must be reflected in the Bill. My constituents are concerned about the increasing marketisation and outsourcing of NHS services. They are concerned, too, about the selling of and open access to NHS UK patient data. They want to protect our NHS. That is why amendment 4 on data protection is so important. While the Government consistently claim in public statements that the NHS is not for sale in future trade deals, the best way to ensure this is to legislate in this Bill, once and for all, to ensure that the NHS is outside the scope of any future trade agreement, in all respects. The Government’s resistance to taking that step and to including that in the Bill gives us reason for concern about their long-term intentions.
I turn to amendment 6 on our food and farming standards. I have received an overwhelming number of emails from constituents on food standards and animal welfare standards, which go hand in hand. It is so important that we get this right. We have some of the most stringent food and farming standards in the world, in terms of the rules that producers must keep to before food reaches our shelves. It is crucial that we keep the standards consistent across imported goods as well. We need a code of practice, as provided for by amendment 6, to ensure that standards are maintained in any trade deal expected to affect food, animal welfare or, very importantly, the environment.
It is really important, as we have heard, that Parliament has the chance to scrutinise properly the full text of any trade deals. The CRaG arrangements are simply not effective and strong enough to ensure that we have a chance to consider whatever is in the trade deals. We need a much stronger way of scrutinising these deals, which affect so many aspects of our lives. That is why I support the amendments on scrutiny.
Finally, I want to speak in support of the amendments on human rights, including the so-called genocide amendment. For so many years, UK Governments have supported the principle that trade treaties should contain commitments on the protection of human rights, and have given the European Union the right to suspend or revoke those treaties if there are serious abuses of human rights. Now that we are no longer part of the EU, it is right that we make sure that we retain that provision. The two cross-party amendments to the Bill agreed by the House of Lords would obligate the Government to provide an assessment of the human rights record of a state before starting trade negotiations with it, as well as allowing for that assessment to be scrutinised by MPs and peers. It is vital that we include these changes.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I start by saying that I will not vote in favour of any Lords amendments this evening.
The huge efforts we witnessed the trade team make in order to secure continuity agreements worth £897 billion are not just one of the strongest expressions of Brexit delivered, but bring confidence to businesses by eliminating the uncertainty that so many pundits said that Brexit would bring. That confidence means investment, which means growth, and growth means jobs. It is lamentable, especially at this time of crisis, that we have not had a single speech from an Opposition Member of any party that promotes UK plc; instead, we have had a litany of criticism and negativism, which does the opposite of generating business confidence. One would think that at least some of the pragmatists on the Opposition Benches might, in the national interest, bring themselves to accept that Brexit has happened, and that we should come together to do everything possible to rebuild our economy, because that means jobs for the people of Islington and Camden, as it does for the people of Dudley North.
There are huge prizes to be had. Accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership would open up amazing opportunities in a market worth about $30 trillion. I have huge confidence that our team will bring this about; that we will sign agreements with Australia, New Zealand and the USA; and that we will strengthen ties with Mercosur countries such as Brazil, which have huge growth potential.
Lords amendment 3 has special importance for some of my colleagues. Although I completely agree with the spirit and intentions behind it, the key for me is that Parliament must always remain sovereign. Ultimately, this is what Brexit was all about—answering the crucial question, “Who decides?” The unintended consequence of this amendment is that it would provide the judiciary with powers that would undermine Parliament. My contention is that questions of genocide—its definition, its impact over time, and measures for responding to it—are so complex that it is not the judiciary, but Parliament, under advice and with the royal prerogative, that is best placed to deal with them. Therefore, while I very much respect colleagues who are minded to support this amendment, and understand their reasons for doing so, I will not.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this most important debate. I will support the Collins and Alton amendments on human rights. Members from all parts of the House will have heard the Foreign Secretary on the “Andrew Marr Show” this weekend. When challenged about today’s amendments on human rights, he responded,
“we shouldn’t be engaged in free trade negotiations with countries abusing human rights.”
What does that mean for the UK’s continued arms trade with some of the most despotic regimes in the world, including Saudi Arabia, the UK’s biggest arms customer and one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes? UK-made warplanes, bombs and missiles are playing a central role in the attacks on Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition, which has led the largest and longest humanitarian crisis in the world.
Today, 80% of the population in Yemen are living a brutal cycle of starvation, malnutrition and sickness, and they are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. In the words of a recent UN report, the situation in Yemen is a “stain on humanity’s conscience”. By continuing to sell arms to the Saudi regime, despite overwhelming evidence of that regime’s repeated breaches of international humanitarian law, Britain is made complicit in these war crimes. The same UN report states that the continued supply of weapons is only perpetuating the conflict and prolonging the suffering of the Yemeni people.
Between March 2015 and July 2020, there were 535 alleged breaches of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, according to the Ministry of Defence. That is more than one a week for the entire duration of the conflict. These breaches include strikes in residential areas—on schools, hospitals and family homes. Civil rights organisations such as the Campaign Against Arms Trade and Amnesty International have repeatedly and consistently called for the UK Government to halt arms transfers to the Saudi-led coalition because of the clear risk of such arms being used to breach human rights and international humanitarian law in Yemen.
While this Government continue to duck their legal responsibilities, Yemeni civilians are dying in their thousands. It is shameful, and it has to stop. Questions of legality have already been raised around our ongoing arms deals with Saudi Arabia. These amendments would add an extra layer of scrutiny, so that we could ensure that UK products were not being used in violation of international humanitarian laws. They would oblige Ministers to provide a full assessment of the human rights records of any overseas states before starting trade negotiations with them. MPs and peers could scrutinise any evidence, and human rights reports would be reviewed annually to check ongoing compliance with a robust system that ensured that the UK’s ongoing and future trade partners adhered to basic human rights principles. If being an independent trading nation means one thing, it should be the choice to decide which countries we are prepared to trade with and which we are not. If we do not support the amendment today, the Government will have clearly shown that it is happy to turn a blind eye to the blood on its hands. Today, we have a chance to put that right, and the constituents of Liverpool, Riverside urge Members from all parts of the House to support the amendment.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
This Bill builds on a really strong platform that we delivered in 2020, despite those headwinds of the global pandemic. Having got Brexit done, we have struck trade deals with 63 countries around the world, covering £885 billion-worth of trade.
We are here to talk about the amendments sent from the other place. On genocide, the United Kingdom has never shied away from protecting the rights of the world’s most vulnerable.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
A lot has been said about the atrocities and, let us face it, genocide going on in Xinjiang. Does my hon. Friend agree that while Lords amendment 3 is not perfect, it is a starting point to address the real human rights concerns? Now is a chance to be the light in the darkness.
Ben Everitt
I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight what is going on in China at the moment. It is an incredibly awful, complex situation. My worry with Lords amendment 3, to address his point, is that it would place our courts in a uniquely difficult position. They would be acting akin to international courts in determining where and when acts of genocide have occurred. Invariably, they will be doing so with unco-operative and oppressive states, as we are witnessing at the moment.
We risk, I think, turning our courts into arenas for foreign nations to play out their foreign policy objectives. The political and diplomatic risks associated with that would go far beyond the intended scope of the amendment, well-meaning though it is. It would be a dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians to place a political burden on our judges. We would undermine the separation of powers that is the bedrock of the political stability of this nation, and it would erode the royal prerogative powers to conduct international relations. That is not something I think any Government could do, and it is not something I can agree to.
On scrutiny, amendment 1 would place limits on negotiators to seek trade deals with flexibility. In a rapidly changing world, fortune will favour the nimble. Dither and delay will not help and will not bring back those trade deals. We are all familiar with deals, no deals and bad deals, but any deal negotiated by a Government is the legacy of that Government. The amendment would remove the responsibility from Government and the obligations would fall between those institutions that I have talked about. Our trade policy would be aimless, not decisive—hesitant, not energetic. If Parliament is not content with the terms of any negotiated agreement, the power remains for ratification to be blocked. The Bill does not change that.
In general, Lords amendments 1 and 3 simply contradict each other. One pulls the centre of political gravity towards the legislature, and the other towards the courts. We would be dismantling a proven structure of approving trade deals of scale at pace.
The Bill in general builds upon our newly acquired status as an independent trading nation. We will be taking a values-driven approach to trade policy, which includes defending, championing and promoting high standards around the world in areas such as food and animal welfare, the environment and human rights. It comes at the beginning of an important and exciting year for the UK. Despite everything that the world has thrown at us and at itself over the last year, this year can be the UK’s year: more trade deals; the G7; the G20; and leadership of the COP26. This is Britain’s year, and the Bill goes a long way to kick-starting us into that year.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
The Government are at pains to say that the NHS is safe in their hands. They say that we do not need to worry about US healthcare companies. They say that it is fear-mongering. “Trust us,” they say, “and stop asking questions.” But in politics, if you want to know someone’s agenda, just look at their actions: see what they say when they think people are not listening. If we do that, we see that the Government are saying something quite different.
A 2011 book argued that the “monolith” of the NHS should be “broken up”, and that
“private operators should be allowed into the service, and, indeed should compete on price.”
The book set out a plan for a Conservative Government after the coalition. Its authors? Well, they were five newly elected Conservative MPs, who now sit on the Government Front Bench, including the Secretary of State for International Trade, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and the new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It does not stop there. The Prime Minister, when he was a Back Bencher in this House, called for the privatisation of what he called the “monolithic” and “monopolistic” NHS. Writing in a 2002 book, he also said:
“we need to think about new ways of getting private money into the NHS.”
If we look at this Government’s actions, again we see their true intentions. During the last 10 years of Conservative rule, the NHS has not just been chronically underfunded; it has been privatised by stealth. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 opened the floodgates to private health companies. In the last five years, nearly £15 billion-worth of contracts have been handed to private providers; that is an 89% increase. In this crisis, again they see an opportunity. They call it NHS Test and Trace, but really we all know that it is Serco test and trace. Billions of pounds have been handed out to failing private companies that put profits before people.
The clearest test of all was last summer’s vote on the amendment to this Bill that would have provided legal protection for the NHS from outside private health companies. The Government voted it down, with not a single Tory MP rebelling to vote in its favour. Sadly, I do not have time to go through the donations, speaking fees and close links between Government Members and private healthcare companies and firms linked to NHS privatisation—but, of course, they know that too well.
In conclusion, the NHS is our proudest and most precious public service. Its staff are incredible, dedicated to public health and caring for our country. Today we can show our thanks. Conservative MPs can finally put their warm words into action. This House can vote to protect our NHS. I urge all Members to vote for the NHS protection amendment, Lords amendment 4, and for the scrutiny amendment, Lords amendment 6.
Greg Hands
With the leave of the House, I will respond to what has been a wide-ranging debate, covering many domestic and international matters.
Let me first say that the Government recognise that this House enjoys significant expertise and experience on questions of human rights. We are committed to ensuring that that knowledge is utilised, and to exploring how we can ensure that the views of colleagues are heard and considered on these issues in relation to our free trade agreements.
Let me turn to the points raised during the debate, although I do not have so long to respond. The shadow Secretary of State made a number of points. She said that the Government were stubbornly holding on to CRaG and the Ponsonby rule, despite entry into the 21st century. I was intrigued by that, because, of course, CRaG was introduced by the last Labour Government, in the 21st century—and the right hon. Lady supported it. I would add that, through CRaG, there is an ability to prevent ratification.
Through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, we have added to the process the publication of negotiation objectives and economic impact assessments, and parliamentary statements after each round of negotiations. We have created the Trade and Agriculture Commission to inform Parliament; section 42 of the Agriculture Act reports; and the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee having access to the texts to provide their own reports to Parliament.
The right hon. Lady mentioned China. She has come a long way in a short time on China. In her very first appearance at the Dispatch Box in this role on 12 May, she asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make it clear to the USA that she would not agree to
“any version of article 32.10 of the USMCA that would constrain the UK’s ability to negotiate our own trade agreement with China”.—[Official Report, 12 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 111.]
She did not want anything that would conflict with the UK’s ability to negotiate a trade agreement with China. I have been absolutely clear that the Government—
Greg Hands
No.
The Government have no plans to negotiate a trade agreement with China, but it does seem that the right hon. Lady might.
I turn to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We know that he is passionate on the issue and we know he has had a long-standing interest. We have worked together on many aspects and on trade. He is right that it is for the UK to shine a light across the world. I do not disagree with any of his passionate statements about human rights and genocide. However, we also in this country shine a light around the world by making good law. The scope of his amendment is very wide. It would cover not just free trade agreements, but potential trade agreements, and agreements that the UK might hope to accede to. It covers not only bilateral agreements, but plurilateral and global agreements—even WTO agreements. I do not think it would be right for the Government to wait for the human rights in a country to reach the level of genocide, which is the most egregious international crime, before halting free trade agreement negotiations. Any responsible Government would have acted before then.
It is also unclear what is meant by preliminary determination procedure. The nature of that procedure has not, I believe, been thought through. As a matter of international law, it is individuals not states who commit genocide. Therefore, in requiring a preliminary determination as to whether a state has committed genocide, it is also unclear what both amendments would actually require a court to deliver.
What the official spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), did not say is that it is the SNP’s policy to rejoin the EU.
Greg Hands
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) says, “Hear, hear.” But that would mean immediately having to sign up to the EU—
Greg Hands
I am not going to take any interventions. I have a lot of points to respond to. I apologise to my right hon. Friend, but I have responded to his speech.
As I was saying, that would mean immediately having to sign up to the EU’s brand new investment deal with China from day one. The hon. Member for Glasgow North says, “Oh, we wouldn’t do that,” but he has just said that he would re-join the EU.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made a very strong point that trade policy must be conducted by the elected Government. We have taken control from unelected judges in Brussels and it should be for elected parliamentarians to scrutinise. He said that amendments put forward today for the very best reasons will result in the very worst practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee made a powerful speech, in particular about his own family’s experience of genocide. He is absolutely right. Genocide is the worst crime there is; it removes an entire people, but we still need to make sure we are making good law. If a country is committing genocide, it is extremely unlikely that any UK Government of any colour would be negotiating a trade agreement with it. I do not believe it would need a court to tell us that, a point also made by my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie).
The Chair of the International Trade Committee had a few points to raise in terms of the Committee’s scrutiny of the Japan deal. I remember that his Committee actually praised it, but we can work with him further to improve scrutiny.
We had some very good speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) spoke against the involvement of courts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) made strong points on the UK’s international position, but I do not believe that if he had really dug into Lords amendment 3 he would be supporting it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who has studied the amendments, made an excellent speech. He pointed out that, from the scrutiny from the International Trade Committee, Ministers have proven ready to listen. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) knows trade policy well and was also against the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) called for more parliamentary scrutiny. Well, there is a very significant increase in parliamentary scrutiny from the CRaG position that we inherited. We compare favourably with other Westminster-style democracies, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) was passionate on the issue, but she said that the UK Government are in a do-nothing position. That is not correct. The statement made by the Foreign Secretary last week was very clear about the trade actions that the UK Government are putting in place on supply chains and information and on making sure that no companies benefit from any of the appalling practices happening in Xinjiang.
Greg Hands
I am going to try to summarise all the points that have been made.
The amendment in front of us says:
“International bilateral trade agreements are revoked”—
it is not a suggestion—
“if the High Court of England and Wales makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked”.
That is an absolutist position as expressed in the Alton amendment. More to the point, there is not a bilateral free trade agreement with China to revoke. I will come back to that point shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has been to Xinjiang and spoke strongly against what is happening there, made the point that the amendment, which may have China in mind, could well be used for countries with whom we do have trade agreements. I agree on finding a balance, but the Bill, as he rightly points out, is all about continuity trade agreements and agreement on Government procurement and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) quoted the amendment of the LibDem peer Lord Purvis. I say to him that parliamentarians can have their say through the CRaG process on any future trade deal, if Parliament has concerns. That is a key part of our scrutiny arrangements that are set up.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) questioned whether Northern Ireland would benefit. It is absolutely clear that Northern Ireland will benefit from UK trade deals. The UK says that. The EU says that. The 63 continuity trade deals all apply to Northern Ireland and the withdrawal agreement and protocol are clear that Northern Ireland will benefit from UK FTAs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) spoke on platform liability. He asked us to agree that what happened with the US in relation to the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, which the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury quoted earlier, will not take effect in the UK. We have been absolutely clear that those provisions will not take effect in the UK. He also called for a formal role for the Information Commissioner. I met her recently and I am considering what she has to say on the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made a powerful point about the importance of the issue, but the flaw is in the amendment in front of us today. It is not for the courts to revoke trade treaties. That is a denial of the fundamental supremacy of Parliament. He is absolutely right on that, while being passionate about what is going on in China and other parts of the world. He asked for more parliamentary debate. Determining the parliamentary timetable is not always entirely in any Government Department’s hands, but we at the Department for International Trade always welcome more debate on trade deals, wherever parliamentary time allows. It is great to have Members passionately interested in trade deals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) made a powerful speech on the 63 deals done. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), a former Attorney General, raised some really strong points about the legal language of the genocide amendment. What does a preliminary hearing mean? Who is the respondent? Would it be the foreign Government, or would the UK Government have to respond for that foreign Government, which in almost all conceivable cases would be a Government that the UK Government would have been very critical of? He raised serious points that get to the heart of the amendment and how it is not appropriate in our constitutional settlement for the High Court to be doing such as thing as trying to revoke an international treaty. On online harms, I am very happy to engage with him further.
There were excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on the importance of our trade agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) is quite right. He is passionate—he is the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong—but he also said that lawmaking is about workable rules and doubted whether a court should have the right to automatically revoke an international treaty.
May I also say a few words about some of the Opposition contributions? I do not have time to reply to all of them, but it is good courtesy to try to reply to as many as possible. I think the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) was making an argument about whether courts should pronounce on genocide, and that is a relevant topic for debate. However, what we have in front of us is not the question of whether courts should pronounce on genocide; the question is whether the courts should have the right to automatically revoke an international trade agreement. That is the amendment that is in front of us, and that is the amendment that I urge my colleagues to reject. It is not for a court to revoke international treaties.
The NHS was raised by Opposition Members including the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). The Government have been consistently clear about their commitment to the guiding principles of the NHS: that it is universal and free at the point of need. The Government’s position is definitive: the NHS is not and never will be for sale. The NHS is of course the most beloved of British institutions and is not in anyone’s interests, including this Government’s, to change that. No UK trade deal will change that either.
Let me just say a few final words about Lords amendment 3 on genocide from Lord Alton. I know Lord Alton well. I have worked with him closely on a lot of these issues. He and I were instrumental in the all-party parliamentary group for North Korea, and I know his absolute passion on these issues. I also know from my own involvement in these questions in relation to central Asia, including here in Parliament in 2006, and in articles that I wrote in 2011, how passionate he is about these issues. Being passionate about an issue is why we are in this place, but it is also incumbent on us to make good law, and that is fundamentally the question in front of us tonight with the Alton amendment.
I want to make three other points quickly. The first is that there is no bilateral free trade agreement with China to revoke, so even if the High Court decided to do so, that would not bring any comfort to the Uyghurs. Secondly, as I have mentioned, is it a matter for the courts automatically to revoke international treaties negotiated by this Government and approved by Parliament? I do not think that can be right. Thirdly, we do not have a bilateral free trade agreement with China, but we do have such agreements with dozens of other countries. I am not at all sure that it is the right role for the High Court to be potentially clogged up with questions of other countries, international relations and international treaties. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider carefully whether that is the route they wish to go down.
The amendments introduced into the Bill by the other place were undoubtedly done with good intentions, and I hope that I have spoken to all the points arising in this debate and to the speakers and the amendments. But it is our strongly held position that these amendments would, in the aggregate, be to the detriment of the Bill rather than to its advantage. I hope that what I have said here provides the House with clarity regarding the Government’s position on the amendments we are discussing today, and that it will vote to reject them.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15 and No. 41A),
That, at this day’s sitting, the motion in the name of Andrew Stephenson relating to Business of the House (High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House (High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill)
Ordered,
That, at today’s sitting, proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill may continue for up to one hour from the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order and shall then (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments).—(Andrew Stephenson.)
High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill
Tuesday 19th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 View all High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (3 Dec 2020)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12.
Andrew Stephenson
Let me say at the outset that the majority of these amendments are clarifications, corrections and updated references. When a Bill has had such a lengthy passage through these Houses as this one, it is perhaps amazing that there are so few amendments that need to be made. Let me say also that the Government accept all the amendments made by the other place to this Bill.
As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will provide some comment on the more substantial amendments, but before I do so, I would like to thank the other place for its careful scrutiny of this Bill. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton for her very great skill and diligence in steering this Bill through the other place. I also wish to extend especial thanks to Lord Hope of Craighead and his Committee for their careful and considered approach to the petitions against the Bill in the other place and for the way they handled their processes during the global pandemic.
Turning to the amendments, Lords amendment 2 introduces a requirement on the nominated undertaker to provide and publish annual reports on the impact of the construction of the High Speed 2 project on ancient woodland. This is a scheme-wide amendment: it applies not just to phase 2a of HS2, but to all phases, including those that the House has not yet considered. The requirement in this amendment to report is about ancient woodland, but I have also committed to wider environmental reporting on the impacts of HS2. I look forward to the first of these environmental reports being published, and I am absolutely committed to holding HS2 Ltd to account on environmental matters.
Lords amendment 3 introduces a new requirement on the Government to undertake the consultation prior to 1 May 2021. This consultation is to be for the people of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire, and it is to seek views on various types of impacts from the HS2 works. The Government opposed this amendment in the other place, but that was on the basis that it was deemed unnecessary. There has already been considerable consultation with the people of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire. Nevertheless, I think that accepting this amendment is the right thing to do. As the Minister for HS2, I have been charged with resetting the relationship between the HS2 project and local communities. I have worked continuously with colleagues across the House who represent communities along the line of route. I am listening, and I will not stand in the way of the opportunity to listen more through further consultation. I want to reassure the House that I am taking action on what I hear, where it is needed. Further, I will do all I can to ensure that officials and those working on the project for HS2 Ltd put any consultation responses to the best possible use.
I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling in the affected communities, and I am therefore mindful of the motivation and the sentiments of those who supported and voted for this amendment in the other place. As I have mentioned, extensive consultation has already been undertaken. It is crucial, though, that we remember that local communities are at the heart of this project. HS2 is a massive infrastructure project from which the whole nation will benefit, but there are those who will have to bear a burden for that to happen.
I cannot move on without mentioning that there is a price tag of around £350,000 attached to the consultation. However, the costs of running a consultation are minor compared with the costs of delaying the Bill and of not listening to those who are directly affected by the impacts of these works. Let me therefore be very clear about consultation and engagement. The passing of this Bill does not mean the end of engagement with local communities. Indeed, it is only the beginning of a renewed effort to try to mitigate the impacts of the HS2 works on them. Therefore, while there has already been extensive consultation, I see no harm in there being even more.
The last amendment to which I wish to draw the House’s attention is Lords amendment 5. It simply clarifies when a new road constructed under the powers in the Bill becomes specifically a public highway, and when a temporary highway ceases to be a public highway. This clarifies the position for local authorities and has been highlighted as necessary through learning the lessons from phase 1. The remainder of the Lords amendments—amendments 1 and 4, and 6 to 12—delete references to some specific phase 1 works that have been made obsolete by a Transport and Works Act 1992 order, delete references made obsolete by the repeal of some local Acts and update other references in relation to the Communications Act 2003.
The Bill has already taken far longer to go through Parliament than was anticipated when the legislation was introduced in July 2017. I do not want to delay it further today. I want this section of the railway to be built so that we can hasten the benefits of HS2 to the north as soon as possible and, given all that I have said, I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that there will be a three-minute time limit on Back Benchers, because we have only an hour for this debate. I remind hon. Members that when a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill and all the Lords amendments. I thank the Minister for his acceptance of Labour amendments, particularly Lords amendment 3, and for his acknowledgement that the Bill did not go far enough to ensure that local voices were heard. This progress would not have been possible without the excellent work of my Labour colleagues in the other place, including Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe. I appreciate the hard work that has been done to get us to these final stages since the Bill’s introduction to the House in July 2017. As I am left holding the baton, it falls to me to place on record my immense gratitude to all those who have contributed so far, including House staff, Members’ staff and officials at the Department for Transport. I would also like to thank my predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for their work in previous years to help improve transport infrastructure.
While I am pleased that we are making progress today, I am deeply concerned about the Government’s approach and commitment to High Speed 2. Yet again, it seems the Government are overspending and underdelivering. They repeat ad nauseam about “levelling up” the north, but their continuing refusal to commit to delivering HS2 in full, including the phase 2b leg to Leeds, and their 40% budget cut to Transport for the North is the exact opposite of levelling up. I sincerely hope that cities such as Leeds are not going to miss out on the benefits of HS2 due to the Government’s failure to get a grip of ballooning costs.
Our northern towns and cities deserve better from the Government, so perhaps the Minister will make the commitment today that HS2 will go all the way to Leeds. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to make that commitment now. That is disappointing, because high-speed rail projects deserve and require long-term and sustained commitment from Government to succeed.
Right now, we are seeing a complete absence in Government support for HS1 and Eurostar. What message does that send about the Government’s commitment to high-speed rail? For this project to be as successful as it can be, we need the Government’s full commitment to control the exploding costs of the project, commit to the stage 2b eastern leg to Leeds, minimise the environmental impact from construction and ensure public consultation.
Lords Amendment 3 addresses one of those main concerns—local consultation. The section of the line that we are considering today stretches from Fradley Wood and ends at Crewe in Cheshire, largely following the Staffordshire-Shropshire border. Residents of those local areas will have their daily lives impacted by the ensuing construction, yet many will see no material transport benefit. Under-investment in transport in those three counties brought about by a decade of underfunding and austerity means links to the HS2 line are simply insufficient. Time and again, the residents of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire are promised investment from the Government, but they have consistently failed to deliver.
Oswestry, a town in Shropshire, has a population of almost 20,000, yet no train station. That is not an isolated example. Labour’s amendment will minimise disruption from the project and make sure that all three counties benefit by launching a consultation with the good people who know the needs of these counties best—local residents.
Consultation thus far has been poor, yet it was a key promise from the Government and from HS2. Many have voiced their concerns. For example, in the village of Woore in Shropshire, members of the local parish council have repeatedly been told that their point of contact has changed. Just recently, they have been transferred to their fifth official. On an issue that will impact their daily lives for years, that is simply unacceptable.
Many other residents have been frustrated and are left feeling ignored by Ministers and HS2 when they refuse to meet them. How does avoiding proper local engagement assist with development and investment? I am pleased that the Government have finally committed to enhance consultation and to bring any findings to this House. Residents need action, not more warm words, as we have seen with other aspects of the Bill.
Lords amendment 2 concerns ancient woodland. We all know that this project must minimise negative implications for our natural environment, including ancient woodlands. HS2 will deliver increased rail capacity to grow freight and passenger usage, helping to address our climate emergency. For this project not to be held to account on its environmental commitments would be a failure of leadership. After all, while rail accounts for 10% of all passenger miles, it contributes only around 1% of all greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Rail is integral to reaching net zero.
Ensuring rail is more accessible, affordable and sustainable should be a huge part of HS2 and I hope Ministers remain mindful of that. While the Government claim that they want to level up transport, action has yet to be seen. With one of the worst regional inequalities in the developed world, which has only been exacerbated by a global pandemic, levelling up in the north and midlands is more important than ever. Local people must be heard and Government promises must be delivered.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
There is less justification for this grossly overpriced project than there was when Labour first proposed it. It is the most expensive way to destroy lives and homes, and tear apart the environment. It also ensures that highly paid HS2 personnel continue to bulldoze through this unpopular project. Public polls show it is an unpopular scheme, and Chris Packham’s petition to halt it in its tracks has already attracted over 136,000 signatures. It is a shame that the Government and this Minister, excellent though he is, do not have the courage to cancel it or suspend construction.
Turning to the Lords amendments, because three minutes really is not enough, Lords amendment 2 applies to all phases of HS2, including the one that tears through the heart of Chesham and Amersham. It covers all ancient woodland, but I am not sure it goes far enough. For example, there has been an ancient oak tree on a property of one of my constituents, but it was on land that was only potentially required during the construction of the railway. It was cut down. There was not the accompanying consultation and the destruction was probably unnecessary, but HS2 did it because it could. That, for me, is not good enough. I hope that Lords amendment 2, now accepted by the Government, will at least go wider and ensure that consultations do take place. I hope that individual trees will be covered and that the reports the Minister gets will include how wildlife is affected, such as the barbastelle bats that have been disturbed at Jones’ Hill wood in my constituency. When HS2 was told it had to stop cutting down trees, it immediately put up very powerful lights at night so that would cause damage to the bats and the environment—so thoughtless and such a cavalier attitude to this rare species.
Turning to Lords amendment 3, the Minister mentioned the cost of £350,000. Let us get that in proportion. It is less than half a year’s salary of the chief executive of HS2. I hope the consultation further up the track will be superior to that exhibited in phase 1 in our area. Our local Chilterns Conservation Board experienced the superficial engagement from HS2, which alienated communities and risks designs, such as that for the Amersham vent shaft, being foisted on our community. They are going to build a headhouse that will stand out like a sore thumb in perpetuity. If that is what consultation means for HS2, beware all of you on the phase 2 line of route. So far, consultation has proved to be poor and inaccurate. On this and on many other parts of the construction, HS2 has failed to inform, consult, communicate and engage meaningfully with the people in communities affected by this wasteful project. At a time when our financial resources should be directed to the benefit of the whole UK, it is a project that is to the detriment of the many and of benefit to the highly paid few.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
To follow on from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), I find it slightly bizarre that at a time when rail travel has been upended and changed dramatically, there was no mention of that in the Minister’s comments. Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” The pandemic has certainly changed the facts even more than those who questioned the original rationale of this project could have anticipated. It has especially highlighted the contrast between the grand projet—the great project—and the incremental improvement of capacity. That is what the Eddington report, produced back in the early 2000s, highlighted. It should have been listened to much more.
That is to some extent on the supply side. The impact on the demand side has been dramatic. The question is whether that is a blip or an oscillation, or a structural seismic shift. Has it, in fact, changed travel patterns for good, both for conurbation commuting and for inter-city travel? One factor will be possible annual recurrences of the pandemic, as with flu. It may not be as dramatic in a future wave, but it will certainly have an impact.
We have also seen work patterns change. We see that here, with many people working from home. They may not continue to do that all the time, but they may well be working split weeks. That will have an impact on demand. Far more meetings are now conducted by Zoom. That process has accelerated dramatically in a way that nobody, not even the founders of such companies, anticipated. If those meetings patterns change, what will that do to daytime inter-city travel? Will there actually be the demand? Will having the west coast main line and HS2 not actually mean that both become unviable?
I have to ask the Minister, in the light of those developments, whether the Transport Department has actually reassessed the fundamentals of the project—what work has it done on it? While considering the Lords amendments, and given the astronomical sums involved, should there not be a pause and a reassessment, which could require a complete rethink of the project? We may have sunk a few billions—the sunk costs argument is always attractive and seductive but fundamentally wrong—but do we really want to continue to spend tens of billions more?
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. I begin by thanking the noble Lord Rosser for taking up the cause of my constituents in the village of Woore, a small village where Cheshire, Staffordshire and Shropshire meet; Woore actually means boundary. It comprises a strip of about a mile and a half entailing Ireland’s Cross down to Pipe Gate, with a footpath that crosses the road three times. The road is already inadequate for modern traffic, yet perversely, HS2 has decided to go on three sides of a rectangle to take, at the peak, 300 heavy goods vehicles per day—a total of 130,000 extra heavy goods vehicle movements over seven years.
That road is completely inadequate as it stands, and I take my hat off to the parish council and Mr Cowey, the chairman, for battling for those who live in Woore. It is now really urgent, and I welcome the fact that the Government have endorsed and will adopt these amendments, because we have to move rapidly. I will be in Woore again tomorrow morning talking to HS2 and Shropshire Council. We proposed 38 mitigation measures and are down to 33. These are now really important. They mean more than just turning the crossing into a pelican crossing or having a lollipop lady at busy times, when 65 children try to get to their school. I am seriously concerned for the safety of my constituents. The construction phase will begin shortly; it sadly looks as though this project will go ahead.
It really is important that we have a proper consultation and that the Minister, as he is bound to by Lords amendment 3, listens carefully, and that he ensures that those mitigation measures are pushed through and financed by HS2. We plan to spend, apparently, £80 billion, according to the House of Commons Library. It was £30 billion when I was in the Cabinet. I was told we were going to link it up to HS1 and go to Heathrow, but we are not; we are going to somewhere called Old Oak Common. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, this project is now completely out of date. We can use Zoom and Teams. It would be far better to spend £30 billion of that giving every single household in this country top-class superfast broadband.
However, sadly, this project has its own momentum. If I had the chance tonight, I would vote against it again. I thank the Minister very much for adopting Lords amendment 3 and taking on this consultation, but will he absolutely promise my constituents in Woore that those 33 proposed mitigation measures will be financed by HS2 and will be implemented before those 300 trucks a day start pounding down the narrow lane and past that footpath that crosses the road three times?
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) [V]
I am glad that the Minister has agreed to accept the amendments from the House of Lords, particularly Lords amendment 3, which relates to consultation for the people of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire, who are affected most grievously by this monstrous white elephant, which has cost so much—it has spiralled out of control. I very much endorse the views expressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). It has already caused exceptional physical and social disruption in my constituency, which will receive no benefit from its construction. It has blighted my constituency down the line from top to bottom, wreaking havoc on the countryside and the value of properties and damaging the environment.
HS2 is profoundly unpopular in my constituency. I do not have the time today to go through all the examples of the inadequacy and unreasonableness of HS2, all of which are set out not only in the debates I have taken part in, but in all the petitions in the Commons and Lords. I congratulate Lord Berkeley, Lord Rosser and other Members of the House of Lords who voted for this amendment, including my noble Friend Lord Framlingham. This amendment would never have been presented in the House of Lords without them and without the indefatigable presentation of the case by the Stone Railhead Crisis Group, all of whom deserve congratulations, particularly Trevor Parkin. I also want to pay tribute to Whitmore Parish Council and all those in the north of my constituency, particularly Ian Webb, Bill Murray and Sheila Ramage, and all the volunteers too numerous to mention, some of whom have, I am afraid, already died. I also wish to mention Fred Smith.
This amendment provides for these works, which include road traffic, the environment, woodlands, and relates to a question about the provision of further railway facilities. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that all these improvements should be included for the whole line. In particular, the consultations should follow the Gunning principle, which prescribes the basis on which consultation must be followed. I also suggest that people read what has been said by the Consultation Institute and the comments by its redoubtable adviser Rebecca Wright on proper consultation, which is vital.
This has been a long and tortuous journey. These amendments will assist in mitigating some of the problems, but nothing affects my objections in principle and the economic judgment that I have formed about this project as a whole, which I have voted against at every opportunity throughout its passage through Parliament.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I wish to speak to Lords amendment 2, which will ensure regular reporting on works around ancient woodlands and which, I understand, has been accepted by the Government. However, I am not entirely happy, because this will take the form of annual reports produced by HS2 Ltd, so it will be marking its own homework. We need external bodies, such as the Environment Agency, to be central to that process.
That is important, given the extent of environmental damage. HS2 Ltd itself states that a total of 11 ancient woodlands will be subject to direct impacts as a consequence of phase 2a. To put that in context, the UK is one of the least wooded areas in Europe, with just 13% woodland cover, which compares with a figure of about 37% in the EU27—so we are talking about just one third of that. It is also worth noting that 2% of Britain is ancient woodland older than 400 years, so this is a precious amenity that we need to protect. In all, 63 ancient woods stand in the intended path of HS2. In Warwickshire, four ancient woods have already been felled. In South Cubbington, we have lost much of that 5 acres, but it will be Whitmore wood in Staffordshire where we will see the single biggest loss of ancient woodland on the entire scheme—an enormous 5.5 hectares.
The environmental devastation being wrought by this project needs to be put into the context of the original premise of HS2. It was claimed by the Department for Transport that it would triple the capacity of the trains across the entire route, but then we come to the cost. The original estimate was £38 billion, but by 2015 that had become £56 billion and in 2019 the chairman of HS2 Ltd quoted figures of £72 billion to £78 billion. At the same time, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was talking about a figure of £110 billion, a figure echoed by Lord Berkeley, the deputy chair of the independent Oakervee review of HS2. Then we had the issue of the timetable, as this was already so very late. Yet there has been concern that the Government will not even deliver the phase 2b eastern leg to Leeds.
Lords amendment 2 is focused on the environmental damage, and I want simply to question the economic and environmental priority here. What are the most pressing challenges facing this country, particularly in the light of the pandemic? Given the costs and immediate issue of climate change, is this really the best project we can be investing in? We need electric vehicle infrastructure. We need 280,000 public charge points installed by 2030. We need the delivery of hydrogen to our towns and cities. The need for broadband has been mentioned. A national roll-out of full-fibre broadband would cost £30 billion. We also have the need for regional rail networks. The report by the National Infrastructure Commission highlighted the importance of rail needs for the midlands and north—that is where the priority should be given, particularly given that the world has been turned upside down this past year, a point highlighted by Arup in its “Future of offices in a post-pandemic world” report.
I am grateful for the work done by colleagues in the other place, but it is important that the type of regular reports called for in these amendments should be supported by reviews and debates in Parliament. That is what I want to see and it is what many in this House want to see, and Members may be assured that I will campaign for that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
The case for HS2 before the pandemic hit was made on the basis of the need to expand capacity. I always argued that there was a quicker and cheaper solution for capacity, and that was to digitalise signalling, introduce more short sections of bypass track and improve engineering around the main stations. By those means, we could have got a 25% or so increase in capacity much more quickly at a fraction of the cost, leaving over money to improve local services and the use of the existing railway, and for other purposes.
Now that we have had the pandemic, as we move to the recovery phase, which we hope will be quite soon, we have to accept, as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and others have mentioned, that the nature of work and the use of the office will change. We may well find that the intense pressure during the Monday-to-Friday morning and evening peak, as a result of people tending to start work at 9 and tending to leave for home at 5 or half-past 5, will diminish. We may well find that people will want much more flexible use of their railway—that they will not travel every day, and will not necessarily be going at peak hours. One of the big problems that the railways face—capacity on journeys to main towns and cities at peak—will be changed or relieved by that.
We are due, from the Government and the industry representatives that advise them, their interim thoughts on what the shape of the railway and railway demand might look like in two or three years’ time, assuming that all has gone well with vaccination, and that there is a pretty good, robust recovery. We should not assume that it will be recovery to the same work and railway travel patterns that we had before.
I hope that we will make more intelligent use of the railway for freight, because there is still plenty of scope for that if we can get better at single-wagon marshalling, and can make better use of the railway for the relatively longer distances that freight often has to travel to get from ports to all parts of the United Kingdom. That would be a possible use of the capacity that we already have. I dare say that there will also be plenty of promotional schemes for leisure and tourist travel. The fact remains, however, that the use of the railway for work will change very dramatically. I do think this whole project needs appraising in the light of that, and that we are owed a proper plan with the latest forecasts, which must be very different from the forecasts that the Government were using when they first put this proposal to the country and to the House.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
I wish to speak to Lords amendment 3, which requires the Secretary of State to consult Staffordshire residents, and Lords amendment 2, regarding the protection of ancient woodlands, in order to represent my constituents who have endured the spectre of HS2 for many years.
From speaking to residents since I have been an MP, I am very aware of the problems that HS2 has caused, and like my predecessor, I have done all I can to assist my constituents in dealing with HS2. I have already visited numerous local groups and business who are being affected, and I have worked with Staffordshire County Council to try to come up with solutions to the disruption that HS2 has caused, and continues to cause. I have also met multiple constituents whose lives have been blighted by dealings with HS2, and have tried my best to improve the situation for them. In September, I presented a petition and stood up for local residents and businesses at the House of Lords Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill.
The fact remains, however, that despite the best efforts of local residents and everyone I have mentioned, HS2 will be extremely disruptive for the people of Staffordshire. Lords amendments 2 and 3 go some way to addressing many of my Stafford constituents’ concerns, so I am very pleased to hear the Minister’s remarks this evening. HS2 construction will also disrupt the A34, the A518, the A51 and the M6 motorway, all of which will potentially cause more traffic for my constituents, which is why amendment 3, requiring consultation with my local residents, is so important. I am also very concerned about the feasibility of construction of the Stone railhead and maintenance base, the increase in heavy goods vehicles and the disruption, which will certainly exacerbate the situation on Staffordshire’s roads. This is another reason why Lords amendment 3 is so vital—it will ensure that local residents are adequately consulted on scheduled works.
Lords amendment 2 reflects the importance of our ancient woodlands. At a time when Britain is leading the way on climate change and hosting COP26, we should not be seen to be cutting down trees, which is counterproductive.
Since my election, I have consistently represented my constituents with regard to HS2, and I remain extremely disappointed by the way they have been treated by HS2. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me on numerous occasions, and responding on specific constituency places. The way that HS2 has behaved is simply unacceptable, and I am pleased that the Government are supporting the amendments and will consult with my constituents. It is right that they be listened to.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
I wish to speak to Lords amendment 3, which I am delighted the Government are supporting. I also wish to outline why it is so important. HS2 will cut straight through Staffordshire, and we cannot be subject to all the pain without any gain. I am pleased that the Government have committed to classic-compatible HS2 services for Stoke-on-Trent—an area where levelling-up is essential. HS2 must truly be transformative.
The economic uplift in Stoke-on-Trent would be significant. It is an area with huge potential that has punched far below its weight. HS2 services must match our economic ambitions for jobs and housing growth. One service an hour terminating in Macclesfield, while extremely welcome, will be insufficient. Our services need to terminate at Manchester. We also want Birmingham HS2 services, to address overcrowding north of Birmingham. That might also resolve the lack of direct services to Liverpool and Manchester airport. Network Rail must undertake work to the classic network to facilitate new HS2 services and additional future local services.
We need better engagement from HS2 with Stoke-on-Trent City Council and local MPs to maximise the potential of HS2 and mitigate the impacts. It is vital that disruption to road and rail during construction be minimised, as recognised by subsection (2)(a) of the new clause inserted by Lords amendment 3. There are significant concerns about construction traffic at junction 15 of the M6, on the A500, and on the A34. Junction 15 is already desperately congested, and is included in Highways England’s road investment strategy 3 pipeline. Additional measures are also needed to mitigate impacts on the A34 and A500, particularly given the intense housing growth in the Hanford and Trentham area.
Improving local transport is vital to unlocking the true benefits of HS2; that is reflected in subsection 2(c) and (d) of the new clause inserted by Lords amendment 3. Public transport in north Staffordshire is inadequate, and the area is heavily car dependant. Around 80% of trips in Stoke-on-Trent are by car, yet around a third of people do not own one. HS2 needs to be plugged into all our communities if we are to deliver the full benefits. The start of that is the Transforming Cities fund, which has £36.4 million for local bus and rail, but we must go further. We need to reopen local stations, including Meir; that is progressing well, due to the Restoring Your Railway fund. There is also the Stoke to Leek line, which connects communities in the city with the Moorlands. We must reopen either Trentham or Wedgwood stations.
The city council has ambitious proposals for a light rail system to connect everything up, but we need a feasibility study that brings that together. I believe HS2 should consider contributing funding to such a study, to ensure that HS2 can be plugged into every part of north Staffordshire. Without investment in local transport, the benefits of HS2 will be severely constrained, and the last few miles could end up taking longer than the rest of the HS2 journey.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I am speaking in support of Lords amendment 3, which I am glad the Minister has indicated he will accept. I thank him for the open and proactive way that he has engaged with me and other Members of the House. HS2 represents a huge opportunity, not just for Crewe, but for my constituents in the surrounding area. Crewe has a proud railway heritage as an original UK railway town that was once the site of the largest railway and locomotive works in the world, and it is a uniquely well-connected industrial town.
Like many post-industrial towns, Crewe has faced challenges forging a new future for itself, but businesses still come to Crewe because it remains a fantastic location from which to reach the rest of the country. It is home to nationally and internationally recognised manufacturing and engineering businesses that provide high-skilled, high-quality employment. We must build on this. The advantages that HS2 brings for residents are needed to deliver further high-paid, high-skilled work. Parts of Crewe still face high levels of deprivation, and well-paid jobs are at least part of the answer to that.
HS2 is already providing more opportunities; businesses are investing and growing in anticipation of its arrival. If local employer Bombardier is successful in its bid to help build the trains for HS2, the benefits to Crewe and the surrounding area will be even greater. The bid has my full support. HS2 will also unlock improved local transport connections, which I know are the priority for my residents over quicker travel to London.
For this reason, I support HS2, but that does not mean that I do not understand the very real concerns of residents in my constituency and others who will pay a high price. I pay tribute to various Members who have spoken before me and done their best to represent their residents in opposition to HS2. It is important that HS2 does everything possible to listen to people on whom it will have an impact to ensure that it can avoid or minimise that impact. I have already seen examples of HS2 altering its plans in response to feedback from residents, and we know that nationally other approaches are in place, such as the 7 million trees that are being planted to mitigate for lost woodland.
This is not just about minimising adverse impacts. Local voices are on top of local issues and challenges. In my submission in December to the most recent round of consultation on HS2, I was able to identify roads and routes planned for use during construction that I know will not be available because of local transport redevelopment. Being open and listening to local knowledge and expertise will improve the delivery of the project, which is why I welcome Lords amendment 3 and the Government’s support for it.
I finish by saying that I welcome this historic final step in the passage of the Bill through the House, and all the opportunity it will bring to my residents in Crewe and Nantwich.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow so many hon. Friends and constituency neighbours, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan). I, too, support Lords amendment 3 and welcome the consultation that the Government have agreed to with people in Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire. The railway skirts my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme and passes through the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the ward of Maer and Whitmore, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I pay tribute to him for all he has done to stand up for his constituents, and to the local councillor, Graham Hutton, who has done a huge amount of work on this for his residents. He is my former office manager, but I pay tribute to him for what he has done as a representative.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) said, it cannot be all pain and no gain for the residents of Staffordshire. We must see benefits from HS2. I am pleased that we have had commitments on services from Stoke-on-Trent, but they are not good enough, as my hon. Friend said. These trains need to run all the way through to Manchester or down to Birmingham or London. It will not be good enough if they terminate too early. He also mentioned some of the mitigation that affects his constituency and mine, particularly the mitigation relating to junction 15. I welcome the fact that that is already in road investment strategy 3, but HS2 will need to do a lot more to satisfy my local residents, given the impact that it will have on their lives.
This is perhaps a more tangential point, but it is one colleagues have made. Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre needs to be connected back to our mainline railway network, whether that is to Stoke-on-Trent to the east, to the HS2 main line in the west, or via a metro. Newcastle-under-Lyme is one of the largest towns in the country that does not have a railway station of its own. Yes, lots of people use Stoke-on-Trent, but that creates huge pressure on our local roads, particularly Basford Bank. We need much better public transport in north Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said.
In conclusion, I welcome the stance that the Government have taken today. HS2 can be beneficial for north Staffordshire, but I am very conscious that the construction of HS2 poses a large amount of complications for my residents, and residents nearby. I welcome the fact that the Government are engaging with that. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the cost of this consultation is not nothing, but it is minor compared with the cost of the project, and the cost of not listening to the people of Staffordshire, and to the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme—my constituents. Not having the consultation would have been a huge mistake, and I am pleased that the Government have chosen to accept the amendment. I am happy to support them.
Andrew Stephenson
I am grateful for the contributions to this debate from many Members. The amendments that we are discussing are very narrow, and many of the contributions we heard were not within the remit of the debate. However, I appreciate the sincerely held views of all who have spoken today. I am sure that there will be a general debate on the merits of the HS2 project more generally in due course—not least because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) reminds us, her petition calling for such a debate has now passed 130,000 signatures. I will try to respond to as many of the points as I can, but I am also happy to meet any Members who have spoken and to write on any points that I do not address because they fall outside the remit of this debate and would probably be better addressed in the upcoming debate.
Andrew Stephenson
In case it pre-empts a point that the right hon. Gentleman is about to make, I will just add that the revised business case will be published when we make an investment decision. While I cannot come out with a revised business case today, before the Treasury commits, there will be a revised business case based on that investment decision, and similar to phase 1, we will publish that business case for all to see and scrutinise.
John Spellar
I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Are the Government undertaking an assessment of whether patterns of travel have structurally changed or whether this is just a temporary blip? If patterns of travel have changed, the whole basis of this scheme may have done as well.
Andrew Stephenson
We can all see that patterns of travel have changed in the short term, but we are not sure how long that will last. The uncertain end of covid-19—we will get through this, but we are not sure when—means that it is quite hard to predict how long the impact will be. Many studies are going on into this—many academic studies and lots of thought. My personal view is that the global trend we have seen across the world of urbanisation and of people wanting to live in cities and commute between those cities is something we will continue to see. We have seen that in parts of the world that have been affected by previous pandemics and virus outbreaks.
I still think that many people in this country will want to live in cities. When I was growing up, Manchester was like a ghost town and Leeds was similar. Now they are thriving cities and places where people want to live. Therefore I think that projects such as HS2, which is about connecting up the largest cities, still hold sway. As I say, this is an investment for the long term, and phase 1 will not be opening until 2029 at the absolute earliest. I think there is still a strong rationale for it.
I am happy to commit to continuing to keep the House updated. When I was in front of the Transport Committee earlier this month, I committed to informing the House of our thinking about HS2 in my six-monthly report to Parliament. The next six-monthly report on HS2 will be in April, so I intend to give more of the Government’s thinking then. Also, if there is a general debate on this issue, when I am sure lots of these points will be made, I am sure I will be much more closely challenged on the broader point.
John Spellar
Is one of the main drivers not peak-time capacity and daytime capacity? Inter-city travel is very much driven by business travel. We have seen how remote conferencing—Zoom we call it, but there are all the other companies as well—has changed the ways in which people are undertaking those meetings. Might that not really drive down use, so that we do not need that peak-time capacity? In the evenings, there is no problem at all, and that may be when people travel for leisure. Has there not possibly been a significant change?
Andrew Stephenson
This matter really needs its own debate—I am sure it will get one—where we can go through these things in some depth. What I will say is that if we look at the aspirational growth plans of some of the cities we intend to connect, we see that Leeds, for example, intends to double the size of the city centre. We are going to see different people wanting to use transport. We are certainly going to see changes. How long those last for, who knows? We have all in this House spent many months now on Zoom. I cannot wait for us to return to normality and to get back to face-to-face meetings. This is a debate for another day, however, and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to get back to the topic and the amendments in hand. I am more than happy to debate this topic with the right hon. Gentleman at another stage.
Turning to the comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) about the village of Woore in his patch, and the impact on that particularly affected parish, I am more than happy to commit to meeting him to discuss the challenges in that area, as well as the undertakings and assurances that have been given, to ensure that we continue to mitigate where we can the impact on his local residents. While the Bill contains numerous undertakings and assurances, it is an ongoing process, and we need to ensure that we are continually looking at the best available evidence of the impacts and mitigating wherever we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) spoke with passion about his constituency. He has met me many times about this topic. He is one of the directly affected line-of-route MPs on the 2a route. I am very keen to visit his constituency. He has invited me a number of times to meet specific residents and some of the directly impacted local groups. I am very keen to do so when it is safe for me to do that.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about environmental reporting and his concerns that, if HS2 does that via a sustainability report, there could be an element of HS2 marking its own homework. I want to be clear that that is something about which I am very passionate. I want to see HS2 setting a good standard—a new standard—for environmental sustainability reporting. I touched on that point in my last six-monthly report to Parliament. I hope to provide more details in my next six-monthly report.
I am committed to ensuring that the project starts the reporting in a way that looks at all the material impacts and in a way that is seen as credible by stakeholders, and not just greenwashing or something else. The board of HS2 Ltd has now formed an environmental sub-committee chaired by Allan Cook that is looking at this, among other issues. I really want to get environmental sustainability reporting right: it needs to be at the heart of this increased transparency from HS2 Ltd. I am therefore more than happy to meet hon. and right hon. Members to discuss the details of how we get it right, not just on reporting about ancient woodland but on reporting about a whole range of environmental impacts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) again questions the demand for HS2. I think we have covered that quite well. I am more than happy, obviously, to write to him. As I said, I hope to shed some light on that in my next six-monthly report, but I am sure it will also be the focus of future debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) talked with passion about her constituency and the need for the consultation provided for under amendment 3. She lobbied me very hard about amendment 3, as she has about a number of land and property cases since being elected to this House. I pay tribute to her as a doughty champion for her constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) talked about the benefits to his area—comments that were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who sees the benefits to Crewe. I was pleased to be able to visit Crewe prior to the start of the pandemic to meet my hon. Friend and the local council leader to talk about the benefits for regeneration in Crewe. Amendment 3 is important for further consultation with residents in Staffordshire and in Cheshire to ensure that we are taking all people’s views into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) also talked about amendment 3 and the importance of consulting with Staffordshire because, again, he recognises the benefits.
The Bill itself concerns 36 miles of track between Fradley in the west midlands and Crewe in Cheshire. At its conclusion, the Bill is accompanied by over 17,000 pages of environmental assessment and a register of undertakings and assurances that make over 1,500 individual commitments to petitioners and other interested parties about matters they have raised during its passage. The Bill has been scrutinised carefully by both Houses and improvements have been made to it.
I am sure that the wider debate about HS2, on which we have been slightly exercised tonight, will continue for many months and years. I look forward to further engagements as we prepare for the next stage of HS2—the hybrid Bill taking HS2 from Crewe into Manchester. It is right that we debate this project because it is of such significance nationally, and also so costly at a time of so many pressures on the public finances.
At its heart, though, HS2 is a project that will connect people and places. It is a project that will help the country to level up and help us to build back better from the coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, it is my view that we must get on with it. We must equip our people with the training and education needed to undertake the highly skilled roles in planning, in engineering and in constructing this railway. We must offer the jobs promised and get shovels in the ground. This Bill is a small part of a bigger project that will create much-needed capacity on our rail network. I believe that opponents—they may disagree—are short-sighted.
It is right that people stay at home now and we reduce travelling to an absolute minimum, but this will not last forever, as we will defeat the virus. The pandemic will end. People will travel again, both for business and for leisure. When that time comes, I want people to be connected. I want this House to have thought about the long-term future of our country and to have planned for it. I want to join up the west midlands and Crewe. I want us to drive investment in infrastructure, in skills and in growth across a whole levelled-up country. In short, I want this Bill to pass.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 12 agreed to.
Reduction in VAT for home energy bills
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]
Earlier this month, Citizens Advice Scotland launched Big Energy Saving Month, which is incredibly important, not least because approximately 25% of Glaswegians live in fuel poverty. Tonight, I present a petition on behalf of my east end constituents calling for a reduction in VAT for home energy bills. The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that there is widespread public support and acknowledgement of the need for countries across the UK to lockdown to suppress the spread of coronavirus; notes that in doing so many constituents are experiencing greatly increased energy costs as a result of staying at home; and declares that people should not have to bare unfairly the financial burden of complying with stay-at-home guidance in the height of a pandemic and during cold winter weather when energy bills are typically higher.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward measures to temporarily reduce VAT liability for home energy bills.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002644]
Animal Charities: Covid-19
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
It is no exaggeration to say that since this Adjournment debate was announced, I have been engulfed by all sorts of animal charities wishing me to raise their plight in what is a very short debate. It is not possible to mention them all, but their excellent Members of Parliament will certainly do that. My hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) would like to catch your eye for a minute each, Madam Deputy Speaker, although they understand that the point of these debates is to allow the Minister some time to respond to the point that is being made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is very concerned about animal charities in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) has Adventure Island in his constituency, and there is a wonderful charity there. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has some animal welfare interests in her constituency; she is very concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) has Acres Way in her constituency, and she is very concerned about animal charities too.
The coronavirus pandemic has undoubtedly changed all our lives. In the long list of businesses, individuals and organisations that have been negatively affected by coronavirus, charities can often be overlooked—especially animal welfare charities. Charities in Southend and the rest of the country work tirelessly throughout the year to provide essential support to those who are most vulnerable and are often unable to help themselves. Animal charities do much of the same work, but instead care for animals that are unable to help themselves. It is up to Members of Parliament to seize the opportunity to speak for them. It is those types of charities that this debate will focus on.
Animal charities have been somewhat ignored during the coronavirus pandemic, and as a result they have suffered greatly, and so have the animals in their care. Animal rescue and care teams are being stretched to their absolute limits. As an industry, animal charities care for all animals, not just cats and dogs. Farm animal sanctuaries and equine charities, for example, are as important as the charities that focus on caring for more traditional pets. No charity should be discriminated against when it comes to financial support because of its size or the animals it cares for.
Animals, and especially pets, have become very important during the coronavirus pandemic. There has been a surge in the number of households with pets. Many who purchased a puppy during the pandemic agree that their dog was a lifeline in the lockdown. Although having a pet in the house during the lockdown is an attractive idea to many, as it can inject a new sense of life and optimism into the home, not everyone knows what looking after an animal entails. When households rush into buying an animal, and subsequently fail to look after it properly, it is the animals that suffer. According to a survey undertaken by the Kennel Club between March and June last year, 38% of breed rescue organisations saw zero dogs come into their organisations. That could be because dog owners were apprehensive about going to a breed rescue because of lockdown rules.
Many households may not be reporting animal cruelty as much because lockdown prevents them from witnessing it, and they may not be returning pets because they cannot leave their homes, but that does not that mean that animal cruelty is not happening. As such, it is very important that lockdown restrictions allow people to relinquish their pets if they cannot meet their welfare needs.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend remember, some years ago, jointly opening with me the Dogs Trust Essex rehoming centre at Nevendon? It was a multimillion pound investment, and its sole purpose is to rehome those dogs who, unfortunately, have not been cared for as they should have been. Does he commend the Dogs Trust and everything it does?
Sir David Amess
I absolutely do. The wonderful Dogs Trust provided us with two rescued pugs. While I think of those good old days in Basildon, we also have the horse rescue centre there. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) in his place. I am sure he has interests in animal welfare in his constituency as well.
The main problems for the animal charities as a result of coronavirus can be broken down into two main categories: they have less income and they have fewer employees. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates the financial loss across the animal welfare sector last year to be £101.4 million. Those charities have seen significantly reduced income due to Government restrictions to curb the spread of coronavirus resulting in shops being forced to close and face-to-face fundraising events not being allowed. While individual givers remain eager to provide whatever support they can, personal finance worries have affected how much they can afford to donate. While this problem has affected all animal charities, the smaller ones—that is what I am really speaking about—are particularly worried as, more often than not, they do not have access to reserve funds or a big organisation behind them.
Despite the charities’ reduction in income, the number of animals needing care and attention has not decreased and, as they experience a reduction in income, they are forced to make difficult, heart-breaking cost-saving decisions. I have spoken to many animal charities, all of which have been appreciative of the coronavirus job retention scheme and have tried to furlough their employees instead of letting them go permanently. However, I say to my hon. Friend the excellent Minister responding to the debate that, unfortunately, they have lost much of the voluntary force they rely on so heavily for support.
That, however, is just the negative effects of coronavirus on the charities’ business side. The coronavirus pandemic has also introduced massive problems for animals as a result of the charities’ loss in income and staff, but unfortunately the virus’s effect on animals has been largely forgotten. It is important to remember that animals are dying as a result of a lack of care caused by the pandemic. Because of a lack of income, charities that care for sick or injured animals with the aim of rehoming them or supplying subsidised veterinary care have not been able to purchase as much food or medicine as normal or house as many animals. More animals are therefore left to fend for themselves without access to the essential care they would have had before the pandemic.
As a result of having fewer staff, charities have had to limit the help they can give to animals and alter the way in which they care for them. The RSPCA, which is a wonderful organisation, and Lady Stockton is a wonderful trustee, had to switch to emergency calls only, and it stopped its 24-hour inspectorate cover. That again meant that charities had less range and scope to deal with new cases, and many animals were left unattended without help. With the sudden rise in demand for pets, and unfortunately the increase in the number of households unable to properly care for their pets, there is extra pressure on animal charities. These charities have had to do a lot of damage limitation that they had not previously needed to do on such a large scale and in such a short time. That has meant that these charities have had to reduce the amount of work they can do on new cases of animal abuse.
The development of behaviour problems in pets and animals as a result of the pandemic is not as widely reported, but can have long-lasting health impacts on animals’ lives. According to the RSPCA, owners who reported that their quality of life was poorer also had dogs with a lower quality of life. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned the Dogs Trust; it similarly reported that many owners found increased incidents of clinginess and attention-seeking behaviours, as well as behaviour associated with fear or frustration.
With many dog trainers unable to operate because of the coronavirus restrictions and facing many financial hardships, the behavioural issues that dogs have begun to exhibit cannot be quickly dealt with. One in five respondents to the Kennel Club survey are worried about the lack of training for their puppies, which they have not received due to lockdown restrictions, and a quarter are concerned about future behavioural problems, such as aggression with other dogs once we return to normal. That could potentially result in an increase in the number of dogs surrendered to animal rescue charities following the pandemic, due to behavioural issues, and increase the strain on animal charities further in the long run.
The voluntary sector and animal charities are in a constant state of financial uncertainty. I am very grateful for the Government support that has relieved some of the financial pressure and enabled charities to continue to carry out essential work. However, as always, more needs to be done. The pandemic has financially ruined those charities for close to a year now, and it will have a long-lasting negative effect on animal welfare issues in the future. Too many animal welfare organisations were not eligible for support by the frontline charities relief fund in April 2019, and have therefore received no direct support other than that available through a wider scheme. One consequence of that was that a parliamentary petition, e-petition No. 314968—“Include animal charities in emergency funding due to the coronavirus pandemic”—was launched. The Government responded in July, acknowledging that the animal welfare sector had faced serious challenges, and stated that they were exploring how those challenges could be alleviated.
I say this to my hon. Friend the Minister: I do hope that the Government act on their statement and are ready to quickly implement support packages to alleviate animal charities’ financial worries and enable them to continue to carefully care for animals. There should be support packages targeted at specific charities within the animal charity sector. That is particularly important for equine charities because, as the RSPCA revealed, 79% of equine organisations only had funds for six months or did not know how long those funds would last. Battersea plans to publish a second report in 2021, which will look at the longer-term financial and social impact of the pandemic on animal welfare and the organisations that exist to protect animals. I truly hope that the Government co-operate with those charities and implement their suggestions.
As a patron of the wonderful Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, I believe that Ministers and the Department need to work with the animal welfare sector to help prevent a significant increase in demand for rescue services this year. Part of the work should cover issues such as puppy farming, puppy smuggling and the unscrupulous selling of puppies and kittens by third parties, which are increasingly relevant given the sudden increase in demand for pets.
Zoos are also a crucial part of animal welfare in this country. I was privileged to visit Chester zoo not so long ago and see the wonderful work that they are doing there; of course, we see their wonderful programmes on TV. Zoos undertake charitable work and have extensive welfare and treatment programmes for sicker injured animals. Throughout last year, zoos and animal sanctuaries were closed and then told that they could reopen and then forced to close again. That is a terrible challenge for them. Opening a zoo on such a large scale, only to have to close again, uses a lot of money, time and resources that could be better targeted at directly caring for animals. I also think of our zoo in Colchester. In an already suffering industry, zoos need governmental support to make up for lost ticket revenue. The charity Four Paws was hit especially hard when it had to close its animal sanctuaries worldwide. Without the ability to fundraise on a large scale, essential welfare services will inevitably decrease and so will the level of care that the animals receive. Many zoos and animal sanctuaries are outside, and with proper coronavirus safety measures put in place, such as mandatory face coverings, one-way systems and time slots, they can reopen safely. Keeping our zoos shut is reducing the amount of charitable work that zoos can undertake and reducing the quality of care that they can give animals. Whether or not zoos are able to reopen soon, they need financial support to purchase essential medical supplies and to feed the animals.
The zoo support fund was warmly welcomed by the zoos and animal sanctuaries that matched the eligibility criteria, but, according to the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, only 26 out of 300 zoos in England have been successful with the fund. That is ridiculous. Unspent funds must be redeveloped into a more accessible support mechanism for the sector, so that all zoos can benefit. A parliamentary petition, e-petition No. 308733, on providing financial help to zoos, aquariums and rescue centres during the pandemic, which received more than 135,000 signatures, was debated in June last year. The Government said that they were keeping the situation under close review. Now that the situation has changed due to the added restrictions, I hope that the Government are intending to increase the support for zoos.
In conclusion, while coronavirus has undoubtedly created unprecedented problems for multiple industries, including the animal welfare sector, it has provided an opportunity to address key animal welfare issues concerning the link between wild animals and the spread of zoonotic diseases. This should prompt a much-needed reconsideration of our relationship with animals. This pandemic may be all about our relationship with animals. Incarcerating animals in cage systems on factory farms provides the ideal breeding ground for dangerous new strains of the virus. We have all been appalled by the huge culling of 17 million mink on industrial fur farms in Denmark over fears of a mutated form of coronavirus. Without extensive support measures directed at animal charities, the problem will continue to occur and animals will continue to suffer long after the coronavirus pandemic is over and we return to normality. We rely on our wonderful voluntary industry to selflessly help those more vulnerable than us. We must not forget about the animals. We need to ensure that animal charities have the resources and the finances to look after animals’ welfare. Now is the time to set out a new vision and a compassionate way forward.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) for bringing such an important debate to the House and for letting me speak briefly. I am grateful to be given one minute to bring an equally important matter to the Floor of the House concerning animals—that of the kennel and cattery boarding industry.
Animal charities are now becoming overwhelmed with pets purchased during the lockdown. If they are having difficulties, our local authorities have an obligation to house strays for a period of time, and this is usually with local commercial boarding kennels. Here is the problem: many have not had sufficient financial assistance during the pandemic, with the lack of industry definition making obtaining the Government grants problematic. They are technically open, but they have had limited or no income, because no one has been on holiday. These issues will become increasingly problematic as kennels fall by the wayside, and animal charities—our wonderful animal charities—will undoubtedly bear the brunt of the ensuing problems. I urge the Minister to please have a thought for this.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) for arranging this debate this evening. Zoos such as Dudley Zoo are among our foremost animal charities, caring for some of the world’s most endangered animals and undertaking essential conservation and research work to ensure a sustainable future for all species. They are reliant on income from visitors, and coronavirus has had a devastating impact on their ability to raise funds, but they are still incurring the high costs of high-quality animal welfare.
Dudley zoo has only just qualified for a quarter of a million pounds of the much welcomed £100 million zoo animals fund. To be eligible for this emergency funding, it must see its finances diminish dangerously low to just three months of reserves, which is impractical to ensure the welfare of animals in its care. It would not be right for zoos to have to euthanise animals in their care simply because they can no longer afford to care for them. Although I am deeply grateful for the support scheme, my plea to Ministers on behalf of Dudley zoo and zoos across the United Kingdom is to revisit the support package, eligibility criteria and deadline to save our zoos.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this excellent debate, called by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). There is only one issue about which he feels more strongly than Southend becoming a city: animals and their welfare. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to read his excellent book, “Ayes and Ears”— probably available in all good bookshops—you would be aware that he is the proud patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and has devoted much of his life to campaigning on behalf of our furry friends.
Like my hon. Friend, the Government greatly appreciate the work that animal welfare organisations do, often on a voluntary basis. They protect animals against cruelty and ensure that unwanted animals are offered a loving home. We have heard some great examples this evening, not least the Dogs Trust, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois).
The good news is that we have all appreciated animals in a new and different way over lockdown. There has been increased interest from people wanting to rehome pets, which has helped to alleviate pressure on the sector. Far fewer pets have been abandoned during lockdown. In fact, it is estimated that about 50% fewer were abandoned in 2020 than in 2019 or 2018. The latest data from the RSPCA—although we must read this with the caveats that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West mentioned—shows that there has been a reduction in animal cruelty, with fewer calls about cruelty and fewer complaints needing to be investigated. But of course my hon. Friend is right to highlight fears about people adopting pets when they are not suitable or do not have the ability to train those pets, and we will continue to work closely with the sector on those issues.
The less good news is, of course, that many charities have suffered income shortfalls during this difficult time, because charity shops cannot open and it is difficult to fundraise. Charitable providers of veterinary care have also found it challenging to deliver a full service during lockdown, and have just done emergency care. The Government are very keen to support the animal welfare sector and have made sure that in the covid restrictions, the welfare needs of animals are considered and protected. We have tried to ensure that we can continue to allow animal charities that concentrate on rehoming to continue to carry out their business as best they possibly can within the restrictions.
The Minister responsible for animal welfare, who sits in the other place, meets the sector very frequently, and I know that he will be watching tonight’s debate with interest and will take forward the ideas that have been raised. I particularly want to mention a meeting that he had in September with the chief executive officers of leading equine welfare charities, to discuss their specific worries about the winter horse problem, which happens annually; they were particularly worried about people who care for horses not having enough money to care for them properly this year. We feel that that is going well so far, but we are keeping a close eye on it.
The sector is a really useful source of information to my Department—for example, on rehoming rates and animal cruelty investigations. We have kept up a useful dialogue with the pet industry, local authorities and vets, who are also useful sources of information. It has been really encouraging to see the sector working together collaboratively to safeguard animals in its care, and it has organised emergency grant schemes itself specifically to support smaller organisations.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, these charities can apply for the full range of Government support measures. The furlough scheme has made a significant difference to between 50% and 60% of animal welfare charities, although of course a certain number of staff have to be kept in place to care for the animals that are still in the home. The Charity Commission has issued really useful guidance on running a charity during covid, including advice for trustees on managing reserves in restricted funds and on provisions to help charities through this difficult period.
On animal welfare generally—I think it is fair to say that my hon. Friend mentioned a wide range of issues during his speech—I would like to say that the Government, despite the pandemic, have been working hard not to take our foot off the accelerator in our agenda in this space. In March last year, I was very pleased, as a former pig keeper, to oversee the new code of practice for the welfare of pigs. In April last year, we introduced the ban on third-party commercial sales of puppies and kittens, which tied in with the earlier pet fish campaign to help people make informed choices when looking for a pet.
In November last year, we launched a new agricultural policy, more details of which will come out in the following weeks and months. An integral part of this is the animal health and welfare pathway, which is there to promote the production of animals at a level beyond compliance with current regulations. This is a way of reaching a large number of animals, and of protecting and improving the way we care for them.
On 3 December, we launched a consultation on plans to ban exports for slaughter and fattening, alongside wider proposals on animal welfare during transport. I would encourage all those with an interest in this sector to reply to that consultation by 28 January. On 6 December, we launched a call for evidence on the shark fin trade. On 12 December, we launched the primates as pets consultation. On 23 December, we launched the consultation on the compulsory microchipping of cats, which follows on from the earlier decision several years ago to make the microchipping of dogs compulsory.
We are also very keen as a Government to support the Bill to increase custodial sentences for animal cruelty. This Bill, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is currently awaiting its Committee stage in this place.
Among the other points raised briefly by my hon. Friends was the issue of boarding kennels, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). That is primarily a matter for local authorities, but I will pass on his words to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) raised the difficulties that Dudley zoo has been having. He has raised them many times, and most forcibly, with the Department, and I was glad to hear that he feels the zoo animals fund is more acceptable than the zoo support fund, the previous fund, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West. We feel that this package is working well with the sector at the moment, but we continue to keep the matter under review.
In brief, this Government are committed to animal welfare, as is my hon. Friend, and I look forward to continuing to work together with him in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Sir Iain Duncan Smith |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Alan Campbell (Ogmore) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Sarah Olney |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Nusrat Ghani |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Sarah Olney |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about the social distancing requirements. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, as we consider the order, which was laid before the House on 26 November last year.
At the spring Budget in 2020, following comprehensive consultation and stakeholder engagement, the Government published their consultation response and the Chancellor announced the Government’s intention to legislate to bring pre-paid funeral plan providers within the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority. That will ensure that, for the first time, all providers that sell and administer pre-paid funeral plans will be subject to compulsory and robust regulation. Compulsory regulation in this area is long overdue, and it is right that the Government act to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected by a coherent and proportionate regulatory regime.
This issue has attracted interest from across the House over a number of years and I thank all Members who have campaigned, spoken and written to me about it in that time, including the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who is a member of the Committee. The order will introduce a compulsory regulatory regime by amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, and other related legislation.
A funeral plan is a contract under which a policyholder makes one or more payments to a funeral plan provider, who subsequently provides or pays for a funeral upon the death of the policyholder. Entering into such plans in effect allows policyholders to lock in the price of their future funeral when they purchase the plan. Although there is a voluntary regulatory body in the market, the Funeral Planning Authority, over recent years there have been troubling reports from Fairer Finance and Citizens Advice Scotland of consumer detriment in the sector.
Following those reports, in 2018 the Government launched a call for evidence in order to seek views and information on the potential risk of consumer detriment in the market. The responses to that call for evidence confirmed the existence of consumer harm, which included a lack of clarity for consumers over what is covered by their plan, high- pressure and misleading sales tactics, and a lack of access to redress schemes if things go wrong. The call for evidence also confirmed broad demand in the sector for moving to a compulsory regulatory regime, with 84% of respondents expressing their support.
Following further consultation on a new legislative framework, the Government have decided to bring the pre-paid funeral plan market within the remit of the FCA. That will ensure that funeral plan providers are subject to robust and enforceable conduct standards that aim to protect consumers from further harm. Under the current legislative framework, entering into a funeral plan contract is a regulated activity; however, the 2001 order currently excludes plans covered by a trust arrangement or insurance contract from the definition of a funeral plan.
Because all known providers meet those conditions, no pre-paid funeral plan provider is currently, or ever has been, authorised and regulated by the FCA. The draft order will remove those exclusions, with the effect that providers will generally be required to be authorised by the FCA in relation to entering into—that is, selling—funeral plan contracts. The order will also introduce a new regulated activity that will require providers to be authorised by the FCA in relation to the administration of funeral plans, including existing plans.
Those changes to the 2001 order will ensure that the FCA is able to introduce rules to protect consumers at the point of sale, ensure that providers administer the plans properly, and ensure that they have sufficient reserves to pay for funerals as they fall due. Many funeral plan contracts are sold by smaller intermediaries and in particular by funeral directors, a point made to me yesterday in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. Failing to capture the sale of funeral plan contracts by that large part of the market would result in an ineffective regulatory regime and expose individuals to the risk of unfair selling practices. Therefore this order also makes amendments to the regulated activities order in order to make dealing in funeral plan contracts as an agent a regulated activity. The effect is that all relevant activities undertaken by intermediaries or third-party distributors who promote or sell funeral plans will also be brought within the scope of the amended regulatory regime.
I am mindful that funeral directors are in general not financial services firms, and the Treasury has received many representations from stakeholders concerned about the ability of these small, often family-run businesses to become directly authorised by the FCA. Therefore this order amends the relevant regulations in order to allow intermediaries of funeral plan providers to become appointed representatives of “principal” firms. That means that funeral plan providers, acting as the “principal” firm, must ensure that the representatives whom they appoint to sell or promote their funeral plans comply with the relevant regulatory regimes. For the Committee’s benefit, I point out that that is not dissimilar to a travel agent selling insurance but not actually being responsible individually for being regulated as an insurance provider. It results in a proportionate approach whereby smaller firms that operate as intermediaries will be required to follow the rules that protect consumers, without necessarily needing to undergo full FCA authorisation.
The order also makes consequential amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective Investment Schemes) Order 2001.
Finally, the order will bring this sector into the scope of the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Government consider that consumers should have access to the financial ombudsman in respect of both plans purchased after the order comes fully into force and plans that would otherwise have benefited from the complaints procedure of the current voluntary regulator. Accordingly, the order extends the jurisdiction of the financial ombudsman to allow it to deal with complaints in relation to matters that occurred when the funeral plan provider was registered with the Funeral Planning Authority.
I thank the FPA for its work up to this point. I hope that it will continue to operate until the new FCA regime comes into force and I urge providers to retain their registration and, of course, abide by the authority’s code of conduct in this transitional period.
Following consultation with the industry, the Treasury has concluded that the majority of providers operating in this market are well run, with properly funded trusts. That is important, because it provides a foundation on which a proper regulatory regime can be based. The Treasury has also found that the reported poor practices have largely been attributed to providers that had chosen not to register with the FPA, demonstrating that in this case a voluntary system of regulation cannot be fully effective because providers can simply choose not to comply.
It is a regrettable fact that bringing a previously unregulated sector into regulation—whatever form that may take—creates a possibility that some providers are not able to meet the threshold for the new authorisation. I therefore cannot rule out the possibility that, in the authorising of those firms under the new regime, it is revealed that some providers are unable to deliver on the promises that they have made to their customers. However, I can assure the Committee that the Treasury and the FCA will monitor the situation very closely and, subject to the facts at the time, stand ready to take any appropriate action.
I will briefly outline the next steps. Once this order is made, there will be an 18-month implementation period before the new regulatory framework comes fully into force. That will allow time for the FCA to design, consult on and implement the regulatory architecture for the new regime. It will also allow time for funeral plan providers and intermediaries to take the necessary steps to familiarise themselves with the new regulatory requirements.
I also fully expect funeral plans to be brought within the scope of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but ultimately the scope of the FSCS is determined by the FCA, which will need to consult on the matter. The Government are currently considering whether further legislation is required to ensure that the compensation scheme would operate effectively for consumers if it were extended to cover this sector.
As I said, compulsory regulation in this area is long overdue. We must ensure that vulnerable and elderly consumers in this sector are protected. I therefore commend this order to the Committee.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am grateful for your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am also grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order before us. Like many such proposals, this legislation is the culmination of a process that began, I think, about three years ago. As the Minister said, at that time reports by Citizens Advice Scotland and Fairer Finance outlined problems in the marketing of funeral plans, and called for more regulation of the providers. The Fairer Finance report pointed out that a funeral plan looks and feels like a financial services product but is not regulated like one. It also found that 75% of the people it surveyed who had one thought that it already was regulated like a financial services product, and did not realise that it was not.
The calls for regulation were further spurred by reports of high-pressure selling and a lack of understanding, in some cases, of what the plans covered compared with what people expected them to cover. Obviously, at the time of a funeral, such disparities and, perhaps, surprise extra costs, are particularly upsetting to people.
The Government carried out their consultation and most respondents, such as Age UK and the Law Society of Scotland, favoured regulation. However, it should perhaps be pointed out that there were only about 30 responses. That is not a huge number for a Government consultation. Most were in favour.
The Minister mentioned the FPA, and I held a call with it last month, when it was originally thought that the order would be debated before Christmas. That organisation is not in favour of what the Government are doing, and it made a couple of points that I would like the Minister to respond to. First, it believes that the allegations of mis-selling have been exaggerated, and that the proposed regulation will add costs to what are in many cases small, family-owned businesses.
On the plans themselves, the FPA points out that if not all current providers are approved by the FCA under the new regime that could leave some customers with unapproved plans, or plans that they took out with unapproved providers. What will happen in those circumstances? The Government might hope that an approved provider—and there are some quite big operators in the market—would take over the plans. I am sure that in some cases that would happen. However, what if it did not? Where would it leave someone who had bought such a plan? The customer has not done anything wrong and has bought a plan in good faith. The FPA points out that offers of a refund in those circumstances are not really what customers want. They want a plan that covers the cost of their funeral—not to be told to start again. It estimates that there could be up to 40,000 people in that position. I would like the Minister’s response about people in those circumstances.
The FPA also disputes the Treasury’s estimates of the costs to the sector in the impact assessment provided to the Committee this morning.
Having asked those questions I should make it clear that the Opposition will not oppose the order. The Minister and I debate such things frequently and he knows that I often say that with innovation and change in financial products there must also be innovation and change in the regulatory boundary. Plans of the kind we are discussing have been around for some time, but if we look at the 10-year horizon we can see there has been quite big growth. In 2017, when the process began, there were about 200,000 policyholders. I think it has tailed off a bit in the last couple of years, but there is still a substantial number of people who hold such plans.
Of course, the Minister would also expect me to say that as the role of the FCA changes the question of how it is resourced also comes up. The principle in such matters is usually that the fees for the regulation are raised through registration, and so on. Is the Minister confident that the fees raised will allow the FCA to devote the proper resources to the task? Its role is expanding in a number of other ways, such as through the onshoring of lots of European Union regulation.
Finally, given that we are debating this matter this morning, perhaps we should say a word about the difficult circumstances that people have been in with funerals over the past year. Every faith and tradition has its own way of saying goodbye to loved ones. In my family, it is an Irish funeral tradition, which usually involves a full wake, an open coffin in someone’s house, a full funeral mass and some kind of gathering afterwards. It is a big occasion.
The ability to say goodbye properly is so important to grieving families, whatever people’s faith or tradition. There are many ways of having a funeral, but what they all have in common normally is that family and friends come together to bid a final farewell to a loved one they have lost. With covid, that has not been possible over the past year, at least not in anything like the normal way. We have had around 90,000 covid deaths, but the funeral rules have applied to everybody, regardless of the cause of death.
Nobody in the past year has been able to have a proper funeral. The numbers are severely restricted. Wakes cannot happen. People cannot visit somebody’s home to pay their respects in the usual way. That has caused an awful lot of heartbreak to grieving relatives, and is a very painful consequence of the pandemic. Perhaps we have not talked enough about what the country is going through. We should record our thanks to funeral directors throughout the country who have tried to deal with this in the most sensitive way, trying not only to look after the dead but to help families under the severe restrictions. Of course, funeral directors have also had to do what they could to protect their own staff, with personal protective equipment and other measures, when handling funerals.
I spoke to one funeral director in my constituency yesterday, Susan Ellsmore. She runs a relatively new company; it is only three years old. She spoke of the difficulties imposed by the inability to have face-to-face contact with grieving families, of the pain imposed on families by the restrictions on numbers, with families having to make terrible decisions about who can come to the funeral and who cannot, of the financial pressures that people are under trying to pay for funerals when they might have lost their jobs or had their hours cut, and of the broader effects on the country of so many people not being able to say goodbye properly and, in a way, having grief and the normal displays of grief delayed.
I conclude by thanking Susan, and all companies like hers that have had to cope with those awful consequences of the pandemic. In a debate that is about regulation we should not forget the most human side of all this, and the impact that the past year in particular has had on grieving families.
John Glen
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful remarks. I echo his sentiments about the contribution that funeral directors make up and down the country, in very difficult circumstances over the recent period. I understand the trauma that exists out there and it is obviously incredibly challenging to enact regulations that are appropriate but still cause massive distress. He raised a number of substantive points, which I will happily respond to. Obviously, we did not start out seeking to regulate at any cost and without due consultation. I accept that the number of responses was relatively modest, but there was a clear consensus from them.
I acknowledge the points that the right hon. Gentleman made on behalf of the existing voluntary body, the Funeral Planning Authority, which is not in favour of the regulation, but the reality, as I said, is that for many of its members this is not an issue; the issue comes with those that do not choose to register with the FPA and the burden of distress that those firms cause. That is why we are having to act.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the costs for small firms. I explained the model by which small firms will be able to act as essentially intermediaries in terms of selling these products, and the relationship with the FCA not being a direct one. I accept that the issue about current providers and plans that would, subsequent to the authorisation process, potentially not be authorised, and the attendant consumer detriment, is a legitimate one that we cannot resolve at this point. As I said, it is a matter that the FCA would keep under review. I accept that the issue exists, but that does not mean that we should not tackle the fact that we need to regulate going forward, and we need to regulate for those that have come before.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about FCA resourcing, which is obviously a matter for the FCA to resolve. Notwithstanding the challenges that it faces at different times with different issues, it has a good reputation for doing this sort of work, and we expect to work very closely with it. I have regular conversations—indeed, I will have one today—with the chief executive of the FCA, and I will keep the matter under close review.
I think this is the right thing for the Government to be doing. It is based on evidence, cross-party support and clearly, as matters move forward and the detail of the work and the regulations come into play, there will be an opportunity to debate the measure further in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 19th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
The Chair
We now resume the public sitting. Welcome to our third session of oral evidence on the Bill. All our witnesses today will be giving evidence by video link.
Before calling the first panel of witnesses, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For the first panel, we have until 10 minutes past 10 o’clock.
I now call the first panel of witnesses: Professor William Webb, CEO of Webb Search, and Emily Taylor, chief executive of Oxford Information Labs. Would you please be kind enough to introduce yourselves for the record and make a brief opening statement? We will start—ladies first—with Emily Taylor.
Emily Taylor: Thank you, Mr Hollobone. Good morning. My name is Emily Taylor. I am a lawyer by training. I have worked in the internet environment for more than 20 years. I am CEO of Oxford Information Labs, a cyber-intelligence consultancy. We are actively involved in standards organisations such as the International Telecommunication Union. I have authored papers on 5G and geopolitics, and on China’s efforts to standardise a new internet. I am an associate fellow at Chatham House, editor of the Journal of Cyber Policy and a research associate at the Oxford Internet Institute.
I have listened to the evidence that you have heard so far, and in three areas I think I can bring new information or offer alternative perspectives to the Committee. Those are: why standards matter and what China is doing in standards; the need for a holistic approach to minimising cyber-security risks across critical national infrastructure and especially supply chains; and the China containment strategy and whether there might be more positive alternatives. I have several drafting points to make about the Bill itself, which I am happy to explore with you if time allows. I am of course happy to answer any other questions that you would like to put to me, within my capabilities.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Professor William Webb?
Professor Webb: My name is William Webb. I am an engineer by background. I have worked as a telecoms consultant for many years, and that is what I do now, advising regulators, operators and manufacturers around the globe. Most relevant to this Committee is perhaps that I spent seven years at Ofcom, helping it with radio spectrum and technology strategy. I spent 18 months at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, helping it with its 5G programme. I have also co-founded a start-up in the telecoms space, so I understand that area.
Potentially, I can help the Committee on the security side by looking at whether we can be sure that we are being proportionate in our response to security issues. I can certainly help on the diversification side by talking a little about the strategies of operators, the potential role of open radio access networks and other such diversification strategies, and perhaps some of the better ways to deliver diversification in the future.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. I am now in Members’ hands. Who would like to be first out of the blocks? Kevan Jones.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Q
Emily Taylor: Thank you very much for those questions. The first aspect is why standards are important. Standards development can be very long, drawn-out and not the most interesting thing to participate in, but they are vital both for our security going forward and as part of the diversification strategy. Dominance or over-reliance on a small number of players is bad for innovation, security and procurement. It is great to see the importance of standards coming through in the diversification strategy that has been published. Although standards can take many years to be created, they also hang around for many years, so if we miss the boat with a particular standard when it is critical to a new industry or technology, that can have a lasting effect on our domestic and international industries.
Many scholars, such as Laura DeNardis, have pointed out that technology is not neutral, and this really applies in standards. By accident or design, standards embed the attitudes, values and world view of the engineers who create them. That has not really been a problem for western countries to date, because the US and European participants have tended to dominate, but going forward we need to find a new way of coping and co-existing with a technological superpower that does not share our values and that has invested heavily, with a strategic approach to standards, for several years.
You asked who the leading players are in standards, and in particular you alluded to the role of China. It is quite telling to reflect on the number of leadership positions across the standards organisations environment currently held by Chinese nationals. Of course there are many standards organisations, including the Internet Engineering Task Force, the International Telecommun-ication Union, which sits within the UN, and bodies such as 3GPP—the 3rd Generation Partnership Project—and the European Telecommunication Standards Institute. The Chinese players we see, not just from the Government but industry, include Huawei, Futurewei, ZTE, China Mobile, China Academy of Telecommunications Technology, and Tencent. All of them are active in standards.
The ITU is headed by a Chinese national, and of 11 working groups within the ITU’s Telecommunication Standardisation Sector, or ITU-T, China has a chair or vice-chair in 10, and a total of 25 positions at chair or vice-chair; 135 so-called “questions”, which are sort of agenda items across those working groups; and 87 rapporteurs. I could go on, but I think the point is made.
On where we are with a D10, as you know, the Defence Committee has quite majored on the idea of a D10—indeed, the idea has been going around for several years. The key element as I understand it is a recognition that this country needs to act with others to have a chance of having the coverage and investment that China has had, and that there are like-minded countries that we can partner with across standards, and also to reinvest in domestic or shared capability for manufacturing. Manufacturing has been leaving western countries for more than 30 years and we are now seeing the effect of that. It is all very well to worry about the rise of China, but if at the same time you are asking China to make absolutely everything, it is inevitable that there will be some technology transfer.
Of course, the D10 does not exist. The idea of a Five Eyes type of thing that would also morph into an economic and legal type of partnership also does not exist. Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing network, not an economic bloc or a trading bloc. So there are challenges, but there are also opportunities for partnerships.
Mr Jones
Q
Emily Taylor: It is a bit like waking up halfway through a chess game and realising that you are about three moves away from checkmate. I think we have taken the eye off the ball, although the UK has been strong on standards and has invested in them, but we cannot match China, where we see the fruits of a patient long-term strategy. It is all laid out in the “China Standards 2035” document, but some people in working groups say that they get more than 100 papers to deal with just before a meeting.
There is a sense that we are losing a grip. Part of that is that we did not realise how far standards embed our values until we started to see the alternatives. New IP is something that we have been writing about and studying over the last year. That is China’s efforts to standardise effectively an alternative architecture for the internet, which would not be compatible with what we have today. That is at quite an advanced state across numerous working groups within the ITU.
The Chair
Professor Webb, would you like to respond?
Professor Webb: I certainly agree with all that. I have written standards myself and even run a standards body, so I know how they work. The important point is that it is not possible for a Government just to say, “We are going to influence that standard.” Standards are influenced by the working papers written by the companies that attend the standards body. The UK Government themselves could not really have an influence, and nor could a university or any other organisation like that, not unless they spent inordinate amounts of money and hired a lot of people to write a lot of papers. There needs to be a concerted global or western European effort, or some kind of larger scale activity that can help the larger companies with the resources and expertise and the standards bodies to step up their efforts.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Q
Professor Webb: I think the Bill is fine when it comes to potentially delivering the security desires. It seems to be a very flexible Bill and has the capability to do all those kinds of things. My key worry is more one of proportionality. The Bill essentially says everything must be done to make sure that networks are completely secure. Of course, security is extremely important, but we could have a situation where there is a very tiny risk of some security breach but the mitigation is inordinately expensive, and that might result in higher consumer costs for mobile phones.
Ofcom will need to weigh up that proportionality and make sure its response is correctly balanced, but I do not see that in the Bill. I worry that the risk aversion that I think will happen automatically with the regulator may result in excessive security measures that penalise consumers when they are not particularly necessary. That is my biggest concern looking at the current structure.
Emily Taylor: I agree with William’s overview of the Bill. It is great to see that the industry welcomes it. We heard from Ciaran Martin yesterday in his evidence to the National Security Strategy Committee that industry asked for this, because it had reached the limit of what it could do on a voluntary basis. It is great that it will lead to substantial investments and security. The telecoms security requirements are almost a recipe book—a very clear set of instructions on how to build more secure networks, which is great, particularly the focus on securing the management plane.
However, as William has described, in certain scenarios, there are almost unlimited liabilities for providers, not just to their customers, but to every person who could be affected by a contravention under clause 8. The inspection notices give very wide powers, including entry to premises, and the provider pays for that, so there is not much incentive for Ofcom as the regulator to think about whether this is justified value-for-money-wise and how to target interventions. I could go on, but the other question I have is about Ofcom’s capacity in this sector, because it will have to acquire a very specific set of skills and capabilitie,s and that will require substantial investment and learning as an organisation as well.
Sara Britcliffe
Q
Professor Webb: No, I was not.
Emily Taylor: No.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Q
I have a couple of questions, starting with you, William. We heard from Mavenir on Thursday that open RAN could provide 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G networks now, but the operators were not looking to purchase networks from it. What is your view on the accuracy of that statement and the maturity of open RAN? What challenges does that pose with regard to the diversification strategy set out by the diversification taskforce?
Professor Webb: Thank you, Chi. I am sure Mavenir is correct that it can sell equipment that can do 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G, but that is not sufficient for an existing operator. If an operator wants to put this equipment into its network, it needs to work with its network diagnostic systems; it needs to handle all of the various features that it might deliver to customers, businesses or whatever, or that it might use for optimising its network or the various software systems that it has. It has built these up over 20 or 30 years, so adding in the equipment is a lot more than simply ticking the box and saying that it can transmit 2G or 3G. That takes quite some time, particularly with the more complex base stations that we find in city centres. The ones in rural areas are typically much simpler and less problematic if they go wrong. That is why we see people like Vodafone trialling open RAN in those places.
Although Mavenir has all the ticks in the boxes, it does not yet have work-through with the operators to deliver something that really works for all of its network. As we have heard from the operators, that is a long, slow process. The operators are rightly risk averse—they do not want to rush out a whole load of equipment and for their networks to fail after a few months, with all the problems that that would have for consumers. So it seems to me that we are still some time away—I think the operators have said five, six or maybe seven years—from any significant deployment of open RAN. That sounds very plausible to me as a strategy for evolving a network. Of course, by the time you get to that point, they will have deployed most of their 5G network already, so it feels as though open RAN will be too little too late to have a significant impact on diversifying the 5G networks that we have in this country and that we will have for the next few years.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Professor Webb: If I wanted to diversify, I would instruct the telecoms operators to diversify. I would not try and pull the levers one step removed. I would say to the telecoms operators, either with a carrot or a stick, “You must diversify. If you have x number of vendors in your network, I will give you £x million as a carrot.” The stick might be some kind of licence condition that said, “In order to meet your licence, you have to have at least x number of vendors in your network.” That seems to me to be the way to pull through, and then the operators can decide whether they want ORAN, something like NEC or Samsung or someone like that. They can make that choice and that will pull through the decisions to them, rather than the Government trying to decide on their behalf what the best technology for them to use might be.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Emily Taylor: Thank you very much for those questions. As a general point about the cyber-security of critical national infrastructure, I feel a little like we have been fetishising 5G and a single company for the last two years, perhaps at the expense of a more holistic awareness of systemic cyber-security risks. Ciaran Martin spoke eloquently yesterday about the need for flexibility in what critical national infrastructure is. The last year has shown us that what is critical very much depends on what you are going through at the time. Healthcare systems probably would not have been top of the list two years ago, but now they are. The SolarWinds attack shows that the identity of the vendor is not always the key risk point. SolarWinds is a very trusted vendor from a like-minded, close ally country, and yet it turns out to be a critical single point of failure across key, very sensitive Government Departments, both in the US and the UK.
Thank you for talking about consolidation across cloud services, Chi. One of my reflections on open RAN is that, although, of course, I am excited at the idea of open, interoperable standards, which would prevent vendor blocking, most of my experience has been in the internet environment rather than the mobile environment, and we are replete with open, interoperable standards, but we have a major competition problem. That in itself is not going to be enough of a lever to secure diversification.
On the point about acquisitions, particularly where you have cutting-edge technologies coming through, this country is really good at R&D—we have wonderful universities full of very brainy people who are creating things—but there does not seem to be the follow-through to create world-beating companies that can compete across the world stage. Why is that? It is because they either get sold to the US or to China. Of course, the foreign investment security strategies are all part of this as well, but you make a key point. If Amazon Web Services was sold to a frenemy country, that would potentially introduce the same kind of, at least theoretical, security risks that we have been troubled by over Huawei and 5G.
It is also the case that consolidation of infrastructure providers, like the cloud providers, is a security risk, because they become too big to fail. There was a brief outage of Google just before Christmas, and people just cannot work. When Cloudflare or Dyn go down, they introduce massive outages, particularly at a point where we are all so reliant on technology to do our work. These are security risks, and that highlights the need for a flexible approach. You have to be looking across all sectors.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Emily Taylor: Generally, our standard of security across the board is not as high as it should be.
Professor Webb: I realise that Chi had also asked me how the UK can strengthen its ability to provide diversified supply chains, and I did not address that.
I want to pick up on something Emily said as well. I think she is absolutely right—the UK has a great number of really excellent engineers, both in universities and in leading consultancy-type organisations. Here in Cambridge there is a plethora of wonderful consultancies and start-up companies. In my experience, the biggest problem is actually finance. To try to raise the finance to get a start-up company off the ground, particularly one that sells to operators who have huge purchasing power and tend to squeeze all their vendors—quite naturally—is very difficult in the UK. It is much easier in the US. Addressing the ability to provide finance for those kinds of entities and, to Emily’s point, allowing them to exist for many years rather than to be bought as part of that financial process would help more than anything else, for the UK to grow its own major players in this space.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Q
Professor Webb: Yes, I think there is a balance. I do not have strong views on that. The legislation appears to be sufficient and flexible in this space. I think the issue is the way it is implemented, and particularly the downstream actions of the Government and of Ofcom might need a bit more care.
Emily Taylor: The legislation is creating a framework, and a lot of that will be filled out through statutory instrument and the codes of practice that are envisioned. I imagine the codes of practice will reflect the TSRs to a large degree. Thinking particularly about how the legislation might impact on the wish and the essential need to diversify, it imposes very high levels of liability for providers, and almost unlimited duties on everybody for the smallest infractions. That is William Webb’s point about proportionality.
As the measures come to life through secondary legislation, codes of practice and the actions of Ofcom, it is going to be very important that there are checks and balances. I am not sure whether the Committee is hearing from any civil society groups, but I am sure they would be worried about the very wide discretion for the Secretary of State. There is a lot of concentration of power in the Secretary of State and, perhaps, insufficient safeguards, as things are currently drafted.
Also, on the provisions that relate to the identity of the supplier—the nationality—rather than the qualities of security, which I think are the more relevant points, of course identity and nationality can be relevant, but there may need to be more of a look there to ensure that we are on the right side of potential risks of discrimination.
Matt Warman
Q
Matt Warman
It was to both of you, to be fair, but I did mention Professor Webb.
The Chair
You will both get a chance. We will go to Professor Webb.
Professor Webb: I am certainly all in favour of placing the requirements on those best placed to deliver them. For diversification, that is certainly the operators. I talked a bit about how you could, for example, offer them some financial incentive to have a more diversified supplier base. That would make some kind of sense, given that this would add costs to their management of the network.
In terms of security, I think it is a bit more difficult to see how that one might follow. I can imagine that there might be certain security issues where, for example, the decision might be made that a replacement is needed for a certain component in the network, or that they need to purchase some additional elements, and then you might imagine that it might help to have some sort of financial incentive to do that. But I think that would be on more of a case-by-case basis—I cannot see a clear, catch-all type of approach that would enable that.
Emily Taylor: I very much agree with what Professor Webb has said. Indeed, one of my reflections on the draft Bill is that it is very much at the stick end rather than the carrot end. Maybe we will start to see a bit more of the incentives coming through as the detail is filled out. But I think that thinking about incentives would very much reflect the close working relationship that there has historically been between the industry and Government. That is not the case in every country; it is actually a benefit in this case.
Security is expensive, and it is also long term. The telecoms supply chain review last year put it very accurately: the market does not reward investment in security—quite the opposite—so I would hope that there would be some recognition from Government about what is needed. I do not think that the investment in the diversification strategy is nearly going to match the investment that is required by the mobile providers who—yes, they are very successful large companies—have not had the great decade that, say, the Googles of the world have had in terms of their margins. So you are asking an already squeezed sector to make substantial investments, and I think that is the place where you could be looking at incentives.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Q
There is one way of looking at this legislation, which is that it can provide a market-led opening for suppliers, in a market that is no longer, in the long term, going to be distorted by, for example, Huawei, with its state backing. Is there any evidence, therefore, that other suppliers—first tier and lower suppliers—are looking at this and thinking, “There is a chance here to get back into the game”?
Ms Taylor, you talked about security being quite a difficult and expensive barrier to overcome, but are there any discussions in the wider sector about there being an opportunity to be had here, or about whether, actually, a stronger diversification strategy is necessary?
Emily Taylor: The initiative is welcome—the diversification strategy is welcome—but, as Professor Webb has described, there are many barriers to entry for new suppliers. To build out an entire country’s network requires substantial scale, and, very understandably, the operators are risk-averse. You cannot just turn up and build out a network; open RAN is exciting, but, as you have heard from witnesses—and this morning, from Professor Webb—it is not ready, yet, to build out an entire country.
Also, the market distortions can still happen despite a diversification strategy. You can well imagine that the companies that decide it is attractive to enter this market are not, perhaps, the cheeky start-ups that you would want to encourage; they would be already dominant in other sectors. Imagine if we were sitting here, in five or 10 years’ time, lamenting the fact that the equipment market is now dominated by Microsoft and Google. I am just making that up as a hypothetical example—I have no knowledge to back that up—but those are the companies that have the sufficient scale and skills, and as Chi Onwurah said in her question we are moving to a more hybrid network, where skills in cloud computing and software are going to define the success of the player.
Professor Webb: If you want to encourage a new entrant—be that a company that has some skills in this space but is upping its game to develop a complete system, or a brand-new company—they have got to develop the equipment, and that involves developing a lot of software and hardware, and an awful lot of effort and investment. If you add yet more requirements on them—for example, security requirements—that makes their effort even harder; it makes it even harder for new entrants to compete with existing players, who have already made much of that investment, to have the scale and capability to add on that extra. Adding security is the right thing to do—I am not criticising that—but the implication is that it will make it harder to diversify the supply chain. What you want to do is make it as easy as possible for new entrants, with the minimum requirements on equipment, if you want to bring a larger number in.
Christian Matheson
Q
Professor Webb: I am not sure it would quite work like that. I think the operators would always want to procure to a certain security standard, whether there is legislation or not, so everyone would have to get to that standard. Raising the standards bar would essentially require everyone to move up higher above that bar.
Emily Taylor: If I may, just to support Professor Webb’s point, the security standards do not level the playing field, although they are the right thing to do. In just the same way as we have seen some of the perverse consequences of, say, GDPR, the companies that have the scale and capacity to absorb the cost of compliance fare better than the smaller companies, who really do not have the scale and capability. The disincentive to enter the market, or perhaps the incentive to exit the market, as a result of these requirements, hits precisely the type of companies that you want to encourage, although it is welcome to see some recognition of that in the factsheets, with the tiering system. The third tier would probably let the smaller independent ISPs and providers off the hook. It is not quite correct to view it as the security requirements levelling the playing field. They are definitely required, and the market is not delivering that, but it will require close monitoring, I think, to ensure that there is still a competitive market.
Christian Matheson
Q
Finally, could you sum up the chat around the sector at the moment? I get the impression that you are suggesting there is still a way to go to bring confidence that we can diversify across the broad range of the sector, as a result of this proposed legislation, and that there is still more reassurance and consultation required.
Professor Webb: Certainly, as I look at the information that I get back on ORAN, there is a lot more scepticism than optimism throughout the sector about its ability to do anything in the short term. We have talked a bit about why that is the case.
There is potentially more promise from the vendors that are somewhat established—the Samsungs and the NECs—and there is generally better comment about their ability to do something. If I had to look at what I am seeing around the industry and bring some advice, it would be focused on those vendors, rather than ORAN, as the most likely source of diversification over the next few years.
Emily Taylor: I can talk about the feedback that I have been getting. I come from a segment of the internet environment that has not historically been highly regulated at all. I would reflect that, if this Bill were brought forward to cover that sector, you would hear the screams. One thing that has really surprised me, and reassured me to a certain extent—it came through in the evidence you have heard—is that there is a degree of comfort with the direction of travel, and I think that speaks to the strong relationship that the industry has with Government on that.
The Chair
We have five minutes left; I am afraid there is a hard stop at 10 minutes past 10 o’clock. Two Members are seeking to ask questions, so would our witnesses treat this as a quickfire round, with punchy, pithy responses?
Mr Jones
Q
Professor Webb: I think that has already been mooted. I doubt Ofcom has that capability at the moment. In principle, it could acquire it and hire people who have that expertise, but the need for secrecy in many of these areas is always going to mean that we are better off with one centre of excellence, where the threats are analysed, assessed and understood. We have that, of course, in NCSC.
NCSC would advise Ofcom, perhaps at a high level. Perhaps they would not need to detail exactly what the issue was, but they could talk to Ofcom about the mitigation, and Ofcom could be the entity that performs the proportionality of understanding whether a threat needs to be addressed and to what extent, in the midst of all the other things. That is how I would arrange these organisations.
Emily Taylor: Thank you for this question, which goes to both the capabilities and the culture. With the capabilities, as I have said in earlier remarks, Ofcom is going to need to upskill. In reality, as Professor Webb has said, they are going to be reliant on expert advice from NCSC, at least in the medium term, until there is a significant transfer of skills and technology, and in terms of the need for secrecy and a broader view.
Ofcom’s historical role has been much less interventionist than is foreseen in this piece of legislation. Those cultural changes go deep into the organisation and into the character of the people who work there. Cultural change is always difficult and takes time, so I would not underestimate the challenge.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Q
The Chair
You have about 30 seconds each, I am afraid.
Emily Taylor: I think it was inevitable after the US sanctions on semiconductor chips. It is something I regret, because the more difficult part is what we had being trying to do for 17 years, which is to treat all the networks as potentially vulnerable and adopt an evidence-based approach.
I do not think there is a going back from there. Unfortunately, the effect of the US sanctions has not just been on our domestic market. It will have hardened the resolve of China to have an entirely indigenous supply chain, and therefore will hasten exactly the outcomes that it is intended to avoid. We need a much more positive approach, investing in innovation and research, matching the capability and advocating for the benefits for a single, open and free internet.
Professor Webb: I do not have strong views. I think it depends, but clearly if it is high risk then it is probably appropriate to exclude them. The worry I have is that you end up focusing predominantly on vendors that you think are high risk, rather than on the overall security challenge, which will be across all vendors.
The Chair
May I thank both our witnesses very much indeed for your informative evidence this morning, and for giving us the benefit of your wisdom and expertise? We are very grateful to you. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions in the first session.
Examination of Witness
Dr Alexi Drew gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to our next panel, which is a solo performance from Dr Alexi Drew, research associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College London. Good morning, Dr Drew. Would you be kind enough to introduce yourself and make a brief introductory statement?
Dr Drew: Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to present and give evidence as part of this Committee. My name is, as stated, Dr Alexi Drew. I have actually recently changed my position. I currently work at the Policy Institute at King’s College London, and my area of research is emerging technologies and their security and geopolitical implications. I have done a few pieces on Huawei in particular and the implications of supply chain security issues and risks, with publications in the Financial Times and so on, and that is why I find myself in your company today, I believe.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. I am in the hands of Members. Who would like to ask the first question?
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Drew: I think the bigger picture is bigger than purely telecoms when it comes to China. China treats all its emerging technologies and its advancement of technologies—including telecoms, artificial intelligence and quantum research—as part of a broader means of advancing its influence, its economic strength and its geopolitical power on a global, regional and domestic stage.
Telecoms is a large component of that predominantly because, as I am sure you are all aware, the future of telecoms is essentially the provision of what will be the backbone of most of those other technologies; you require a good, advanced telecoms network to gain the full benefits of applications of artificial intelligence or quantum networking, for example. I think China and the CCP have essentially seen that telecoms is a key component of that and have thus done as much as they can both to strengthen the sector within China, and to export that to gain further routes for the future stages of implementing more technological growth and economic and political growth through the next stages of their emerging technology portfolio.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Drew: I would say that is definitely the case. It is market domination primarily for domestic, good use: it is a mistake to think of all that China generally does as primarily internationally orientated. The primary interest is domestic strength, security and stability. The fact that that can be achieved through gaining dominance in markets outside China is an added benefit.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Drew: It is very similar. That is a great point to make. Pretty much wherever you see belt and road initiatives in, say, a port or supply chain of a physical good, you will see simultaneous investment and market input in a telecoms sense. There is a digital silk road as much as there is a belt and road initiative in the physical goods and supply chain sense.
They are becoming increasingly entwined fields; 10, maybe 15 years ago you could easily have seen a distinct separation between the physical supply chain and the digital supply chain. That differentiation is fading as we progress through time, and I think the Chinese have worked that out perhaps faster than we have and they are rapidly making inroads in order to amplify that effect and gain the benefits of it.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Also, you have great experience in evolving security threats. In your view, does the Bill address major telecommunications threats to national security—future and evolving threats? For example, do you think this Bill would have helped to mitigate the impact of the recent SolarWinds Orion network monitoring hack, which was also mentioned by a previous witness?
Dr Drew: I will start with the question of values. I am a great believer that technology and values and norms of behaviour are implicitly connected: you cannot separate them. It should be explicitly understood that it is an implicit truth. I believe—and I have stated this before to some of your colleagues and civil servants in various Departments—that the CCP has realised that the great firewall of China, which tries to police content within China, has holes in it and is not going to last, or was not going to last, given the direction that the internet, freedom of communication and transfer of information is going.
The next logical step, and what I believe is happening, is that if you cannot control the internet within the great firewall, it is better to be able to shape the internet everywhere, both outside and inside it. I would argue that a lot of the technological standard-setting that you see take place in the ITU and elsewhere is essentially that taking place, as is the use of social media platforms to harvest data, which is then used to aid in the censorship of domestic content within China.
With regard to evolving threats and the Bill specifically, I think that the Bill goes a very long way towards pre-emptively meeting threats that are likely to come in the future. My biggest issue echoes what I caught of the previous witness statements: the fact that it is a matter of capacity for the institutions that are given this responsibility—that is, Ofcom—and the ability to change their culture to actively engage within that framework and take action to ensure these standards are met and kept to. Those are my biggest queries about the ability of this Bill to be as forward-looking as we would like it to be.
Finally, with regard to SolarWinds, I think this Bill is aptly timed in a way, given the context of this particular threat. SolarWinds was a perfect example of a supply chain security risk, and a vector of attack that went through a diverse supply chain to meet what should have been some of the most secure systems that the United States had.
Telecoms will, as I have already said, be the backbone of all the UK’s future advancements of technology in all the things we are seeking to develop within our borders. The hardest thing to do as an attacker is to gain access. We should be making it as hard as possible to gain access; we should be making sure that there is as much oversight and understanding as is possible of where our supply chains go, the standards that they should meet, and whether those standards are being met, and I think this Bill goes some way towards that. I would argue that it needs to be continually updated, checked and maintained. This is not a one-off: times change, and the internet changes faster. Those would pretty much be my recommendations.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Dr Drew: The two essentially go together. If you look at the membership and those who take part in ITU standard setting committees and groups, you will see a predominance of not only state representation from China, but also representation of Chinese companies.
I think it needs to be made clear to our providers the benefits to them of being able to set standards; I believe this has been overlooked. The easiest way to do that is to simply look at some of the technical standards that have been set or lobbied for in this group by companies such as Huawei and ZTE, which are essentially entrenching their technical standards into a global standards body—that obviously gives them an advantage in producing that output. I think our companies could benefit in exactly the same way, and they would certainly benefit from taking part.
On having providers be more proactively involved, I think it would make complete sense for these actors to be made to inform Ofcom, or whichever regulator is chosen, of significant changes to their supply chains. It would be akin to having a black box where we go, “Okay, this black box must output something secure, but we don’t need to know how it gets there.” I think we should know, as much as is possible, who is involved in the supply chains to reach our eventual telecoms network.
Sara Britcliffe
Q
Dr Drew: It is undeniable, as the previous witness stated, that this Bill will increase costs and potentially slow down the pace at which development of these technologies, to the standards that are now being asked for, can be done. I have been asked similar questions before about what is the cost of us not getting to 5G roll-out as soon as possible. My general response has been to point out that although 5G is a backbone technology that provides access, we have very few practical applications of the speeds and connectivity that this network will provide us with.
It is something that you might see on your phone, but the increase in speed from having a 5G connection will be almost so fast as to be unnoticeable to the normal user. We have not got to the point where we have large city-wide technologies that will draw on this infrastructure, such as traffic management, health systems and economic production systems.
Although there might be a delay and an increase in cost—which again, I think we should try to meet in a way that incentivises more players to come into this market—I think this delay is not crippling. That is because, at the moment, although the 5G technology itself is maturing, the uses of that technology are still immature and I do not think we are losing out too much if we have a slight delay, with the benefit of reaching greater security.
Sara Britcliffe
Q
Dr Drew: I believe they were. I have seen a lot of attempts to quantify the damage or impact of limiting our vendor net, as it were. With the removal of Huawei, I have seen multiple attempts to put a value to that—of the slowdown and having to go to different vendors. I am uncertain as to the accuracy of any of those, and I think that it would be very difficult to put a number on that in any useful sense.
My impression is that there is nothing that should stop us from being able to enact the goals of this Bill and the incentives to diversify the market, while also being able to develop and invest in the next stage of 5G use, which is its actual application, and to marry those two up together in a manner that provides us with both security and financial and economic benefit from putting these systems in place.
Matt Warman
Q
Dr Drew: I think what needs to be considered in that question is the type of resources that will be the hardest for Ofcom to acquire. I frankly believe it is not necessarily technology; I believe it is actually personnel. The edge that is given to companies that have already been mentioned in your hearings today—Google, Microsoft, Facebook et al—is not necessarily in the technology, but in those who design the technology. Those people are hard to come by at the level that we require them at. They are also very hard to keep, because once they reach that level of acumen and they have Google, Facebook or Amazon on their CV, they can pretty much choose where they go and, often, how much they ask for in the process.
I think the biggest issue that Government face—not only in Ofcom, but in regards to future technology policy—is attracting and keeping those individuals who can provide the services and understanding, as well as develop the tools, that a future Government will need. If you can demonstrate a way to capture that talent and retain it, I think that would go a long way to soothing any potential questions about whether Ofcom will be capable of meeting the requirements of this and other Bills. This goes across all Departments, I feel.
Matt Warman
Q
Dr Drew: Yes. I believe that this is potentially one thing where, as much as possible, greater co-operation between these Departments should be encouraged, to the extent that it is possible to do, given how the security dynamics of the different Departments work. Quite frankly, Government do not have enough of this kind of personnel and expertise. What you do have, you must ensure is used as effectively as possible. That means that you cannot let them languish in one silo or Department, when their expertise would be highly useful in another where suddenly they find themselves dealing with types of issues that are far beyond their normal remit.
Matt Warman
I am, of course, talking about co-operation between NCSC and Ofcom.
Mr Jones
Q
I think the Minister is relying on good co-operation between the two organisations, but it is clear from the 2013 ISC report on critical national infrastructure and Huawei that civil servants with a bent for looking at economic development did not have their eye on the ball in terms of security, and they did not even tell Ministers about security concerns that were clear then.
Dr Drew: That is a fantastic question. The best way for me to phrase this is that I believe there is an imbalance that is natural to those who have a particular role within Government or the civil service. Those with responsibility for economic advancement will have a different take on the same issue from those of their colleagues with a security bent to their work.
I find this is a complex topic that needs to be balanced across those different interests. That is why I would generally lean towards co-operation between these groups as opposed to others. I also suspect—although, due to the nature of their work, I cannot be certain—that GCHQ and the NCSC have significant work already, which is only likely to increase. Although they might have the technical capability that Ofcom lacks, I am not sure they have the capacity to take on the sheer volume of work that this is likely to create. I would argue that, actually, more resourcing in general is required for whatever co-operative body is created to carry out the actions of this Bill and other Bills attached to it. That is needed.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Drew: I would agree with you. I believe that the decision needs to be taken on a security level first, because insecurity and the risk of a poorly made decision would have negative impacts on the economic outputs as well. I am not certain that where it is currently vested in this Bill is the best place for it, but I also believe that transparency is the other balancing component here. I have had some conversations with one of the companies mentioned quite predominantly in this literature, and their biggest press is that they feel that decisions are being made with a lack of transparency and a lack of technical justification, and that it is all politics. The best way to solve that is through transparency.
James Sunderland
Q
Dr Drew: It potentially could, depending on the type of company that you are attempting to incentivise. It would have a different effect on those potentially two or more categories. If you take one category to be pre-existing companies that previously have not operated within the UK, such as NEC from Japan, they are likely not to be put off to such a great extent—they have already had to deal with some level of security commitment within their normal markets. However, I suggest that it could be more of a barrier to entry for the smaller companies that we are attempting to encourage to get into this market. Emerging companies would find a culture of components and cultural risk to how they view their work, as well as the technical and financial cost of meeting the new standards. Yes, I believe there would be an impact, but it would be different between types of vendors that you are seeking to encourage.
Chi Onwurah
Q
“to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition.”
Do you think there is an argument to add a further security duty, if that is going to take such a large portion of Ofcom’s capacity?
Dr Drew: As to the second question first, I believe that security should be a component here. In fact, I believe it fits with what Ofcom is likely to be responsible for, and with the Online Harms White Paper as well. Security is fundamentally and inexorably linked with technology, culture and communications in the modern sense, so I believe that it would be important for that to be included as a key provision for DCMS.
With regard to the differences between fixed networks and 5G and the implications of this Bill, in the efficacy of its methodology towards the other, there are technical differences in how 5G operates right now and how we perceive the next generation of telecommunications to operate, but those differences will change over time, I believe. They will become less distinct. It is likely that fixed networks will move towards the concept of computing on the edge, and this is indeed already happening in some senses.
As for the actual efforts to control security risk, I do not see any major differences between telecommunications suppliers and fixed network suppliers. There is the same potential risk. You mentioned the SolarWinds hack earlier. That was a fixed network supplier in a way—it was not telecommunications—but there was the same risk involved and the same means of access, through a diversified chain with limited oversight at Government level, because it is a private sector actor with limited responsibilities. That is as true in that case as it would be for a fixed network with Cisco, and as it would be with a telecoms provider by ZTE, Huawei, Ericsson or any other. I do not think there is a significant technical difference to mean that the goals and direction of this Bill could not, and perhaps should not, be applied to others.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Dr Drew: That is a great question that comes with a very simple answer: no. The worst-case scenario for creating a risk in this sense is when monopoly meets supply chain—in secure supply chain in this case. Arguably, the reason why SolarWinds was so successful is that it provided the same service to so many different organisations and departments in the United States. Therefore, if you access one—SolarWinds—you access almost all. That is the risk.
The same is true in this sense if you transfer these issues to telecommunications or fixed networks. If you have only a single supplier, all it takes is that supplier to be compromised for your whole network to be compromised. As I said earlier, with any form of cyber-attack, the access is always the hardest part if you are the attacker, so if you have an easy target or if the target is just one point, they can throw all their resources at it and it is easier. I would argue that diversification is one of the most basic and probably most effective means of limiting the damage that could be caused in any attack against one of those vectors.
The Chair
Dr Drew, there are no further questions from Members, so I thank you very much indeed for your time this morning and for sharing your expertise with the Committee.
Dr Drew: It was a pleasure. Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Simon Saunders and Lindsey Fussell gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move to the next panel, which consists of Simon Saunders, director of emerging technology at Ofcom, and Lindsey Fussell—I hope I pronounced that correctly—group director for networks and communications, also from Ofcom. In the previous two sessions we have been talking about you quite a lot, and now is your chance to respond. Could I ask you to introduce yourself and give a brief opening statement, starting with Lindsey?
Lindsey Fussell: Thank you, Chair; that was the correct pronunciation of my name. I am Lindsey Fussell, I am the group director for networks and communication at Ofcom. My group oversees all of our telecoms regulation, including the new responsibilities for network security that we will be talking about today. I am sure we will have a lot of conversation about the nature of our responsibilities, but I think by way of opening I would say that we very much welcome the Bill. The National Cyber Security Centre found in carrying out its telecoms supply chain review that our existing responsibilities and the existing approach that operators took to telecoms security—and our powers as a regulator alongside that—really needed substantial strengthening, so it is great to see that happening in the Bill, giving operators the certainty of what they need to do to promote telecoms security.
Simon Saunders: Good morning, I am Simon Saunders, Ofcom’s director of emerging and online technology. I have worked on mobile network technology since 1991, before there was 1G, all the way through to current work on today’s and future implementations of 5G. Last week we published a round-up of technologies that could form the basis of future 6G networks. I have worked for mobile equipment vendors, operators, large end users and software companies. I founded and chaired an industry association, the Small Cell Forum, where I led a previous initiative on interoperability and open standards—in that case, in 3G—and I have invented a number of mobile technologies.
Today, I lead Ofcom’s technical work on diversification, including Open RAN. I provide technical advice on behalf of Ofcom to the telecoms diversification taskforce. I hope I can help the Committee with issues on diversification, Open RAN and Ofcom’s potential role in that area.
The Chair
Thank you both very much. James Wild will start the questions, followed by Sara Britcliffe.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Q
The Chair
Simon Saunders?
Lindsey Fussell: I think I will lead on that one, if that is all right. Thank you for the question. I will start by clarifying Ofcom’s role in the two parts of the Bill—I am sure we will talk about both. We have a significant role in relation to the telecoms security requirements, where we will have the obligation of monitoring and enforcing operators’ compliance against them. In relation to high-risk vendors, our involvement is rather more limited. The Secretary of State will have the power to direct us to collect factual information from the operators, but the question of monitoring, compliance and enforcement then rests with the Secretary of State. I thought it might be helpful to clarify the two different roles before we got going.
In relation to telecoms security, as you say, these are important new responsibilities. We have existing responsibilities for network security—and have had since 2011, albeit in a more limited way—so we have a network security team in place. We are also very familiar with monitoring clients and enforcement, and with working with precisely the same set of operators that we will hear about on the remit of other responsibilities, so we have a base to start from. That absolutely does not underplay the difficulty, importance and challenge of building up our resources to deal with this. We anticipate that the cost will be around £6 million to £7 million in steady state, and we will build up a team of probably 40 to 50 new people and new resources to cope with those responsibilities.
The Chair
Simon, do you have anything to add?
Simon Saunders: On our capabilities relevant to the expectations end of things, we are building on our existing capability, working with mobile operators and network providers on the equipment and the software. That is spread across Ofcom, in the leading networks group that Lindsey leads, the spectrum group, and indeed in our technology group, which I look after. In the relevant teams, we have been adding capabilities in with recent experience, with the mobile operators and mobile networks applying the formal diversification.
James Wild
Q
Lindsey Fussell: We have indeed already started to build up our team, and have had some success in recruiting people with experience of network security—from the operators, for example. We do not underplay the difficulty of doing that; I completely agree that those are sought-after resources. Frankly, it is unlikely that we will be able to compete on salary. The type of people we attract are those who are interested in looking at these questions from that broader perspective—looking across the industry—rather than in their previous roles in companies.
We have found that we can have some success in that, but we will also have to be creative in the way that we approach this. We are thinking about how we can build up a pipeline, for example. The NCSC has accredited a number of university courses, and we are looking at how we, alongside the NCSC, can pick graduates up from those courses, for example, to build up a future pipeline of staff, as well as bringing in people with more direct experience.
The Chair
Simon, do you have anything to add?
Simon Saunders: No, not in that area. It might be relevant to mention, just to make the point that it can be done, that I actually joined Ofcom from a role at Google.
Sara Britcliffe
Q
Lindsey Fussell: Are you referring there to the high-risk vendor powers?
Sara Britcliffe
Yes.
Lindsey Fussell: Yes, I think so. It is important to say that, across the scope of the whole Bill, it is not Ofcom’s role to make national security judgments. That is really important. Clearly, that is the Government’s and the Secretary of State’s role, taking advice from the NCSC and the intelligence agencies. In relation to telecoms security, that has enabled us to take the very detailed work and the threat assessment that the NCSC has done, which have been translated into a set of requirements in the code of practice, and to apply those and work with operators to monitor and enforce that compliance without having to make those national security judgments ourselves. On high-risk vendors, I think it inevitable that there will be more national security judgments to be made, so it is quite proper that that role sits with Government rather than the regulator.
Mr Jones
Q
Lindsey Fussell: As I say, we have existing networks security responsibilities, so the issue of security clearance is one that we already need to deal with. I think the point that I have just made is important: we will not be making national security judgments, and that means that we will need access to less national security information than you might imagine. I do not think that we will be routinely handling national security information, but where the NSCS feels that it is required, there are clearly provisions in place for that.
Having said that, as now and in future, there are occasions when we have to handle sensitive information, and we do have the necessary security clearances in place at different levels for our staff to do that. As we recruit, we will obviously ensure that people have those necessary security clearances so that we can handle any sensitive information that we are given.
Mr Jones
Q
Lindsey Fussell: We would clearly take guidance from the NSCS and others on whether they think STRAP clearance is required, because of course, it is for the agencies to have STRAP clearance and to classify information. I have had STRAP clearance in the past, in my previous roles in Government, for example, so I am well aware of the different security classifications that are required and the nature of the information that is to be handled. At the moment, the NCSC has not signalled to us that it thinks we require staff with STRAP clearance, but clearly, if it feels that that is needed for the type of information that we may need to handle, we would make sure that happened.
Mr Jones
Q
Lindsey Fussell: Our role in relation to the requirements is pretty clear. The Government, through the legislation that is being considered by this Committee, are setting out a series of duties on providers and then giving us a code of practice, which has been developed through the work that the NCSC did. That sets out in some detail what operators, in particular the larger operators, will be required to do to meet those requirements. What we will be doing is monitoring, discussing with and talking to those operators as they go on that journey, and ultimately—of course—enforcing compliance, if we think that is needed. Of course, our trade-off is always to be proportionate in the application of our powers, but it is quite clear that the expectation is that we will enable, encourage and require operators to comply with the requirements.
Stepping back from that, there is clearly a balance of judgment that the Government have taken in bringing forward these measures. We all want, for example, to see people across the UK getting the best connectivity possible as fast as possible. This Bill may well have an implication for some of those plans, albeit that operators are well aware of what is coming. But of course the balance of judgment is the importance that security plays for consumers, in making sure that they have access to secure networks, and bearing in mind the significant costs that can be incurred by companies and ultimately by consumers if there are cyber-attacks.
Mr Jones
Q
Can I ask you about an issue regarding oversight? Frankly, I am not a great fan of quangos, because I think their accountability is limited and they allow Ministers to offload difficult responsibilities on to people who have very little parliamentary oversight. Regarding the oversight of your organisation from Parliament’s point of view, some of these decisions will clearly be highly classified. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee will not be able to look at them, because of the security classification. So how will we ensure that you and Ministers will consider the importance of security around these issues?
Lindsey Fussell: That is a really important question. Clearly, we are accountable to Parliament—
Mr Jones
Sort of.
Lindsey Fussell: And we are ready to come and give evidence about our work to any Select Committee that would like to hear that evidence.
As I say, we ourselves will not make national security judgments, but I hear your point that the relationship and the role that we play in monitoring telecoms security, and enforcing those obligations on operators, is a very important one. Under the legislation, we are required to provide an annual report to the Secretary of State about what we find on the state of play regarding how operators are moving towards compliance, and indeed on any security compromises or incidents that we have uncovered and the action that has been taken in relation to those, and on any new threats or other issues that we have identified.
It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider whether they publish that report, and how much of it they publish. We will publish a summary of our work in our annual Connected Nations reports; we do that now. And as I have said, of course we will be ready to talk to any Select Committee that wishes to hear evidence of our role and how it is playing out.
Mr Jones
Q
Lindsey Fussell: I think that is really a question for Government rather than the regulator. We will be ready to provide whatever accountability the legislation requires of us, as well as providing direct accountability by talking to Parliament and Select Committees.
Christian Matheson
Q
Lindsey Fussell: I think the structural framework helps us a great deal here, as I have already indicated. Clearly, the NCSC carried out a really detailed supply chain review, which identified the threats that could occur in different elements of the network, and it has now turned that into telecoms security requirements and, ultimately, into the code of practice. We will be giving—indeed, the legislation requires us to—considerable weight to that code of practice and the judgments that the NCSC has reached on what is required to combat threats. That will then enable us to judge and monitor whether operators are doing what is said in the code of practice.
If, for example, an operator were to say to us that it was not going to meet something set out in the code of practice because it considered that an alternative way would meet that threat, we will have arrangements in place with the NCSC to enable us to seek its advice and guidance at that point on whether that satisfies the requirements of national security.
Christian Matheson
Q
Lindsey Fussell: Clearly, we would start that conversation within the team and escalate it if necessary, but I do not think that it will actually be an issue in practice. We already have very good working relationships in place with the NCSC, and regular collaboration and discussion. The legislation enables us to share information with the NCSC to enable either it or us to perform its duties. I do not think that there will be any issue in practice, or any surprise in terms of our regular interactions with it.
Christian Matheson
Q
Lindsey Fussell: Yes, we do. Of course, like any organisation, you would expect that. Ofcom has a range of people with different skills in it, as you would expect. It is actually far broader than, for example, some of the Government Departments that I have worked in before. We have people who are specialist technologists. Simon has talked about his experience. We have economists, lawyers, colleagues who specialise in enforcement, colleagues who specialise in policy, and many other professions. Although people absolutely do move and develop their career, and certainly in relation to these kinds of new responsibilities we will look to upskill existing colleagues where that is possible and where it makes sense to do so, we also employ an awful lot of specialists who will tend to stay more in that specialism and apply that to our work.
Christian Matheson
Q
Lindsey Fussell: I am certainly not going to deny that there is quite a lot going on, and the organisation is expanding, as you say, albeit with different deadlines and different timescales for the new responsibilities. I have already talked about our recruitment plans to ensure that we have the specialist skills in place to focus particularly on network security, as well as the enforcement and legal support that we will need to deliver this regime, which is a very important part of it.
It is also worth reflecting, though, that there are some really interesting overlaps between different areas of our new responsibilities. If I think of the responsibilities that we have just taken on in relation to video sharing platforms, we are having to understand, as part of those responsibilities, network infrastructure, data analytics and so on. All that actually calls on similar skills and experience that we will need for the regime that we are talking about today, so there is some crossover that we can draw on. Simon, did you want to add anything on that?
Simon Saunders: Absolutely. We have different teams that we are building for the different responsibilities, but there are definitely overlaps between them, and in particular we have built a team of technologists particularly to inform our work on online issues, including, but not limited to, online harm. That comes with a need for us to have technologists who have worked in, and understand, a range of cloud-based computing platforms and the online social media platforms in general. The underlying [Inaudible.] technologies are the ones that increasingly telecoms networks are being built with as well—the so-called cloudification, or virtualisation. So, helpfully, when we recruit specialists in the one area there is the opportunity for them to contribute to the other areas of our responsibilities and to ensure that our approach to these things is [Inaudible.] I think we actually get benefits from having multiple of those duties, rather than separating them.
Chi Onwurah
Q
I want, with permission, to ask a question about three areas: security, assets and costs, and duties. I share some of the scepticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham about the statement that Ofcom will not be making decisions on national security. You will clearly have duties with regard to national security and one of the key duties is to ensure compliance of our entire network—all our networks—with national security requirements. So how are you going to ensure that compliance without taking decisions on security? You seem to suggest that it is just going to be a set of protocols, if you like, from the National Cyber Security Centre, and you are just going to look at ticking the boxes to see that they are met; but in practice that cannot be the case. It is far more complex than that, particularly with regard to emerging technologies.
Another issue is that the Bill puts all the requirement to ensure compliance on Ofcom, in terms of Ofcom seeking information, Ofcom requiring information, Ofcom setting out notices to inspect, and so on. For example, let us say that one of our network operators—I shall not name one—decides to buy all its cloud or virtualisation equipment from a Chinese manufacturer that is not designated a high-risk manufacturer. Would Ofcom be informed of that change in its network? How would that pass to the National Cyber Security Centre—or would it not? Without that kind of duty in place, is there a risk of what you do becoming a meaningless tick-box exercise and, particularly, of its not addressing future and emerging security threats? That is my first question.
Lindsey Fussell: The point that you raise about this needing not to be a tick-box exercise is absolutely vital. I think actually what we are talking about in this legislation is changing culture—crucially among operators but also in terms of giving the regulator new responsibilities and changing the culture that we have, and the responsibilities and the range of the role we take on in relation to this. So this is absolutely—the legislation in fact specifically says so—about future technology as well as about existing networks. It is critical, I think, that we and the operators go on this journey together in terms of promoting that security by design, in everything that is done.
Picking up your question specifically in relation to assets, I think it is more or less impossible to meet the requirements set out in the covid practice for the operators unless they have a detailed asset register of everything that is in their system. We would expect to see evidence of that, and that it is regularly checked, audited and so on. That would be an expectation for us.
On the relationship with the NCSC, as I say, we have specific provisions in place that enable us to share information with the NCSC. As we collect that information with operators, we will discuss with them in advance what type of information they want to see on a routine basis, sharing that and clearly taking guidance from them as necessary if they think there are national security issues that we need to be aware of.
I mentioned earlier about having security clearance in place. To expand on that answer, we have a small number of STRAP-cleared staff in Ofcom, and we will expand that if need be. Those relationships with the NCSC are already in place and will be productive. I should say also that if the NCSC identifies new threats, or if we identify new threats, I think the legislation is flexible and it is right to be so, in that the code of practice can be updated to reflect that.
Simon Saunders: Could I also add that, in respect of our role in emerging technologies, we are not only awaiting others to tell us which emerging technologies to pay attention to? We have our own independent programme of monitoring and horizon scanning for technologies that could appear and have an impact on the networks and the sectors that we regulate. Clearly, the implications are not only about security. They cover a wider range of issues of performance and costs and flexibility and so on. We actively monitor across these sectors for those technologies.
I mentioned earlier that we recently published something about technologies heading for the future generations of mobile. That also covers fixed networks, the advent of quantum technologies and distributed software technologies in networks, and so on. That programme yields an advance look for colleagues about threats and opportunities that are coming towards us into the markets, so that we can build the skills and consider the implications well in advance of their actually impacting on those networks.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Lindsey Fussell: We would, as I say, expect providers to keep detailed records of the components that they use in their networks. I would expect that that is the type of information that, if a significant new vendor is brought into the market, the NCSC might well be interested in. It is worth saying that, while we do not have any direct regulatory powers over the vendors themselves, under these arrangements operators are required to assess the maturity of the vendors and suppliers they use, and the NCSC has issued guidance to them to enable them to assess that maturity. If the question is: if we see a brand new supplier starting to appear, is that the kind of information that we would expect operators to provide to us and for us then to share it with the NCSC? The answer to that question would be yes.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Can I come on to duties? I have the Communications Act here, which has got a lot thicker since I left Ofcom. The two duties are the “interests of citizens” and the “interests of consumers” with regard to competition, but there is not a duty on security. Does that not suggest that if there is a conflict between competition or communication matters, that will be prioritised over security if there is not an explicit duty to maintain the security of our networks?
Lindsey Fussell: I think this legislation quite clearly does place explicit duties on us to monitor and enforce the compliance of operators on network security requirements. I do not see that there is any risk that we would downplay the importance of that duty in comparison with others. Clearly, it is for the Government to put forward any changes to legislation to change the balance of our duties or to add new ones, but I think the Government—and, indeed, Parliament—are asking us very clearly to take on those responsibilities through this new legislation.
To pick up on a point I made earlier, in terms of the interests of citizens and consumers, it is important to say that of course it is in the interest of citizens and consumers to have excellent networks functioning that provide them with great connectivity. If we have learned anything from this most recent period, it is how important connectivity is to everybody’s daily life. Of course, that comes across in pricing and support for more vulnerable consumers, and all those other things that we have responsibility for in telecoms.
Actually, promoting secure networks is absolutely in the interests of consumers and citizens as well, not just because of the really damaging consequences of cyber-attacks, but because, ultimately, if we are able to have better networks, that should enable greater economic innovation through 5G use cases and things like that, for example. I think in promoting the interests of citizens and consumers, telecoms security is clearly part of that.
James Sunderland
Q
Lindsey Fussell: It is probably worth saying that, from an international perspective, although there are some other countries—notably Germany and Australia—that have started to explore strengthening their telecoms security framework, I am not aware of another country that is quite as forward leaning in terms of the framework that is being put forward in this legislation.
In terms of the fines, this is an important point—those fines match the level that we are currently able to levy in relation to our other telecoms requirements, such as breaches of our general conditions. Previously, under our past responsibilities, our fines were limited to £2 million, so really quite a small amount compared with the wealth of the largest operators. I think it is appropriate that the telecoms security fines match what we are able to do elsewhere.
The final point I would make is that fining is an incredibly useful power to have because it acts as a significant deterrent and a strong incentive for companies to comply. It is actually not the first lever that we reach for, certainly not maximum fines; it is there and we are ready to use it if we need to, but our starting point would be to work with operators on this journey as they move towards compliance as they respond to new and emerging threats.
Matt Warman
Q
Lindsey Fussell: Yes, of course, I am very happy to do that. As you say, we have responsibility now to monitor and enforce compliance on security. The difference, which is why I think this legislation is so welcome, is that at present we do not have any obligations set out as to how operators need to meet those security requirements. It has been basically up to them to decide what is necessary. While many companies have invested very heavily in their security—I would not want to suggest otherwise—clearly there is a journey to go on and improvements that need to be made. It is very welcome that we now have this much clearer framework, so that operators know what they need to do and we can enforce against it.
The other point that is worth bringing out is that, at present, operators are under a requirement to report incidents to us, but the nature of that reporting tends to be around incidents that cause outages. We do get a lot of those—caused not just by cyber-security but by wind, weather and other issues. Quite a lot of cyber-security incidents are, frankly, precisely designed not to cause outages, because it is in the interests of the malicious actor to allow the network to keep operating while they do whatever they are up to. The new requirements on operators are to tell us not just if there is an outage but if there is an incident where they believe their system may have been compromised. They are wider ranging and welcome powers.
Matt Warman
Q
Lindsey Fussell: Absolutely.
Matt Warman
Q
Lindsey Fussell: Yes, so the way the legislation works, as you say, is that there is a primary duty on operators to promote security of their networks, and on us to enforce and monitor compliance against that. My understanding is that the secondary legislation will set out around 40 to 50 sub-duties on operators, which they will all need to meet—that is all operators and providers of electronic communications services.
Underpinning that, each of those sub-duties will be reflected in the code of practice, setting out the details of what the operators need to do to meet each of those sub-duties. As I explained earlier in relation to the questions we discussed on national security, we are entitled, as the regulator, to place quite a lot of weight on the national security judgments that the NCSC and the Government have made in drawing up both those sub-duties in the code of practice, in responding to the threats identified.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Lindsey Fussell: In relation to Ofcom’s costs first, Ofcom is funded in two ways: first, by a levy on the sectors and companies that it regulates and, secondly, through the collection of fees, primarily from our spectrum duties. Our overall funding is obviously agreed by our board but also subject to a cap agreed with Government each year. We are currently in discussion with the Treasury about the exact technicalities and which of those routes will be used to fund this, but it will be in line with Ofcom’s normal funding arrangements.
In relation to company costs, clearly the Government have looked into that, in discussion with operators in relation to the impact assessment for the legislation. I know that there is a plan to do further work on that in relation to telecom security requirements, once companies have had a chance to see the SI and the code of practice.
The point here, which is built into the legislation, is the concept of proportionality. Although we would expect the largest operators—we would work with them intensively throughout the process—to take part in, for example, penetration testing, it is likely we will be more proportionate with the smaller operators and, for example, respond on an incident-based approach, rather than expect them to carry out the same level of detailed work and interaction with Ofcom. In all of that, we would want to be proportionate in the costs imposed on operators, as we are in all our responsibilities, bearing in mind that these are really important responsibilities, as we have been discussing.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Lindsey Fussell: If I may, I will bring Simon in on the question of diversification. In relation to costs, the bulk of Ofcom’s own costs are paid by larger operators rather than smaller ones, and we have talked about proportionality in the way we operate that. Again, although I understand the tiering of the system will be set out in the code of practice, that will also be based on size and scale. Simon, may I turn to you on diversification?
Simon Saunders: The diversification strategy that the Government have published has set out a desire to attract new suppliers to the UK and further expand suppliers through open solutions, among other means, and to ensure that that is supported by an appropriate regulatory framework. We are ready to do what comes from that, in terms of any objectives the Government set on the level of diversification and to support measures to enable that. There are clearly synergies between the security aspects and the diversification aspects: in determining how diverse the supply base is, having a fully populated and up-to-date asset register from the operators for the security needs will also support the requirement to assess the diversity, if that is what we are required to do.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Simon Saunders: Our existing duties around ensuring the health of the communications market for consumers and citizens point in the same direction in many ways, even if diversity is not spelled out explicitly. We see that a functioning, competitive market for network equipment supports the operators’ ability to provide cost-effective networks that perform well, and that supports the needs of citizens to get great services wherever they are and for those services to be reliable and so on. I do not view this as an entirely separate area from our existing duties; whether specific duties around this are needed is part of the work we are doing to support the taskforce and the plans that come from that.
The Chair
This will have to be a very quick answer, because we have to stop at 11.25 am.
Mr Jones
Q
Lindsey Fussell: I think that the National Cyber Security Centre takes the decision on national security. Of course, the Government ultimately have the power for that but on the advice of the NCSC. Decisions on enforcement and compliance are for Ofcom, following the code of practice that the NCSC has created for the Government.
Mr Jones
Yes.
Lindsey Fussell: I think in that case we would take the guidance of the NCSC. In practice, I really don’t think that is likely to occur. Ultimately, the final decision on whether an operator has complied and whether we enforce is with us. The NCSC would not be able to overrule that decision, but we would be taking that decision in the light of the information we would have been given from NCSC about what is required to meet national security.
Mr Jones
Q
Lindsey Fussell: I have read that report, thank you.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed to our two witnesses. We are very grateful to both of you for your time this morning and for the expertise you have shared with us.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 19th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
The Chair
Good afternoon. We come to our fourth panel of witnesses today, consisting of Dr Andy G. Sellars, Dr Nick Johnson and Heba Bevan OBE. We have until 2.45 pm for this session. I will ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, starting with Dr Sellars.
Dr Sellars: Good afternoon, Committee. I am Dr Andy Sellars and I am the strategic development director with the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult. We are a non-profit research and technology organisation that helps UK companies to exploit new technologies, predominantly for electric vehicles, quantum technologies and advanced telecom products. I look forward to answering and helping the Committee with their inquiry.
Heba Bevan: Good afternoon, and thank you very much for having me. My name is Heba Bevan, and I am the CEO and founder of Utterberry Ltd. We are a company that deals with artificial intelligence and very heavily with wireless sensor networks or internet of things solutions. We provide our solutions to major infrastructure such as Crossrail, London Underground, Network Rail and Tideway, and we are also involved in healthcare. We design systems that are part of the IoT system, dealing with communications. My background is that I am an electronics and computer engineer and I used to design central processing units for Arm Ltd.
Dr Johnson: Good afternoon. My name is Nick Johnson, and until a month ago I was chief technical officer of ip.access, a UK-based small cell vendor that was bought in September last year by Mavenir—I think you guys interviewed Mavenir on Thursday—but I left at the beginning of this month, so I am now independent. I just want to stress that, on the connection with Mavenir, I am truly independent; I am not speaking for Mavenir in any sense at the moment.
I think ip.access came up a couple of times in the conversations with Mavenir last week, but we are a small cell radio access network vendor, a RAN specialist for cellular technology, global system for mobile communications, 3G and long-term evolution, and to some extent 5G. We are deployed in many networks. Historically, over the 20-year life of the company, we have been deployed in more than 100 networks worldwide, and are probably active in a little more than 50 of them. Those networks include T-Mobile in the US, AT&T in the US, Airtel in India, BT One Phone in the UK and others of that sort. Those are my credentials.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Q
Dr Sellars: You are quite right that 5G opens up a whole load of new benefits, predominantly high-speed access/lower latency. I think some of the security risks are around who is providing the infrastructure to support 5G. The concern that we have at the moment is that we need to have security of supply—both resilience of the supply chain for that infrastructure, and the cyber-security and encryption element of that infrastructure.
I think it is fair to say that 5G is likely to support a much broader selection of services. It is likely to have an impact on commercial, governmental and security transmission, just because of the widespread access and its very high-speed capability. It is also likely to support a very large number of internet of things devices—the sort of devices that UtterBerry develops. Some of those devices are another potential attack vector, if you like; they are another potential vulnerability. It is broadening the access into the network, which is potentially opening up new sorts of vulnerabilities that we need to take into consideration.
Dr Johnson: Let me start by saying that some aspects of security in 5G networks are actually much more secure than in previous generations. Looking over the lifetime of cellular, you will know that you could just listen into first generation analogue networks with a very high frequency radio. GSM—the global system for mobile communications—was secure, partly at least. The network and the phones would authenticate to each other, but only asymmetrically, so the phone could be captured by a surreptitious network. That sort of attack is still used.
3G is much more secure, with symmetric authentication. It is harder for devices to be captured by the wrong network, but it is still possible. It is also possible for the IMSI—that is to say, the international mobile subscriber identity—of an individual or group to be found from that network. The same is true of 4G. In 5G, that is much more difficult. In terms of the security of the user of the network, 5G has tightened up a lot of the loopholes in previous generations in a way that is very hard to unpick. That creates tactical problems for some law enforcement agencies, which rely on some of the insecurities of earlier generations to do their job.
From the network side of things, there are some issues. There is a new network model in terms of the way nodes are connected in the core network. No longer are there physical interfaces as in previous generations of network, where there would be an S1 connection from the base station to the core. There are still connections, but they are much more in a publish-subscribe-type model. I think those, conceivably at least, bring a little more opportunity for attackers to probe nodes within the core network to find weaknesses and vulnerabilities. That is my take on 5G.
Heba Bevan: We have three elements that the telecoms community could work on: the communication aspect, which is provided by companies such as BT; the hardware aspect, which is probably provided by companies such as Utterberry; and the software element within the system. So there are three types of vulnerability that could be introduced in the path of these three elements. The only problem with these paths is this: who is responsible if there is an attack? Usually, the communication aspect is the most important part to get protected.
Currently with 5G, there is a huge opportunity for opening up a huge economic impact from the sector in terms of healthcare, education and tech industries. These industries will need to move on and having 5G is definitely an important element, but how can we make sure it is secure in providing an effective communications network that provides an end-to-end solution and security? That is where I think we need to concentrate on the telecommunications and how can we make sure that what we are getting from that communication is totally secure, and that the encryption within it passes certain thresholds.
We can follow a certain standard within the hardware and software, but if the network is weak and has not provided us with good reliability, that is where things could be broken.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Q
Is there a shelf-life of the older versions? I am surprised that we are still talking about 2G—that it has not been removed. Is there a shelf-life for those elements and will they be removed from what I term “the network”, which is of course the whole global telecommunications infrastructure of the UK? Nick, do you want to start on this question?
Dr Johnson: Yes. Let me start on that shelf-life question. GSM is a little bit like Radio Four longwave, right? I do not think that it is ever really going to die; there are just too many people who depend on it for one reason or another, whether that is for emergency calls, or just for coverage in remote locations or wherever. I think GSM will stay there forever, despite its security issues. They are well known and understood, and managed in due course.
The shelf-life of network components is an interesting aspect. Our experience of deploying into cellular networks is that there is always a security audit involved. When we take a piece of equipment into a new operator, there is always a hurdle to be overcome. They have their own audit procedures and those include a sort of paper audit, where they look at the particular software components that the software is built from, some of which we build ourselves, some of which is open source and some of which is commercial off-the-shelf software libraries and so on. They want to make sure that those are all up to date and properly patched, with all the latest security patches and so on. I think that will just continue on. To some extent, that is just the baseline hurdle.
I am not sure this is exactly what you are asking, but what has changed in my mind as we go forward is this idea that there can be software in the network that is not so much interested in security—as in, somebody hacking into it—but is more of a Trojan horse type of software, completely undetectable until some signal or some date comes by and it springs to life and does bad things. The example I have in mind is the SolarWinds example from December last year, where software had been inserted in the supply chain and had been sitting there quite happily for a while. That, to my mind, is very difficult to detect. Until it goes off, you do not know there is a bomb inside it, and that is an issue.
Coming back to the shelf-life question, keeping the software up to date is a major issue. It sounds easy, but practically speaking, I know it is an operational dialogue all the time within vendor businesses: they are striving for revenue from new customers, for new features to be added, and that is acting against updating the software libraries and so on to bring them up to date. There is a continual dialogue in every vendor company to ask, “Do we need these features to get more revenue, or do we need to update these libraries because we need to maintain secure software?” I guess to some extent, the whole reason for this Bill is to try and force that to the front of the conversation; to say, “Look, you can’t go on. That dialogue has to stop now. The software needs to be secure.” That has to be the baseline; it has to be a basic hygiene factor in selling software that it must be secure to a certain level, and the features need to come as value added. If you have some questions coming up on the code of practice, designated vendors and so on, we might talk about that, but those are my comments on shelf-life.
I think I missed your first question. I apologise.
Christian Matheson
Q
Dr Sellars: I can add a little bit. Your question about auditing systems is very pertinent to the experience we went through at the end of the 1990s with the Y2K bug. Lots of companies were required to do an audit: financial institutions, companies using software-driven automation, were required to do an audit of their systems in response to that threat. It would probably be a fairly similar exercise for telecoms. I am sure they must have a register of the equipment they use.
Nick has made all the points about software shelf-life, but from a hardware point of view, there is a capacity that the hardware can deliver. My understanding is that as they put in a new service such as 5G, it is quite often built on existing infrastructure such as 4G and 3G. Clearly, each piece of hardware has a bandwidth and can support a certain amount of data throughput, so in terms of shelf-life, I would argue that it is mostly capacity-related. I do not think there are any major concerns about things wearing out as such from a hardware perspective.
Christian Matheson
Q
Heba Bevan: If we are auditing basically hardware, it becomes very difficult. You can audit maybe 10 main base stations, 20 or even 100, but every single one of them is quite hard and intensive, and it might also be locking to a certain competition in who the supplier is. If you are getting it from one supplier, you are able to audit that supplier, but if you are getting it from multiple suppliers, how would you audit every single supplier? Would you go 10%, or 20%?
The other thing I would like to highlight is that back in early 2018, Intel had a problem with the security of one of its chips. I can provide written evidence later on to give you the full details on that. One of their chips, as well as AMD and Arm, had a problem, and they knew about it, but it has not been fixed. The problem is that if you put it out there into the community, it becomes a major threat, and a bigger threat.
In terms of hardware, as long as it is supported, maintained and updated on a regular basis, its shelf life will be built to a certain recognised standard. However, if it has not been built to a certain recognised standard and it has not been tested and maintained yearly, it will come to an end very quickly and will need to be replaced. We have a huge problem with a lot of networking in smaller areas and bigger areas in the UK. Some of the areas have an amazing network and speed, and some of them are very bad and are actually degrading. We can see that even in education. Schools currently rely on these networks to have Zooms and Teams meetings, as well as normal meetings. Some areas have not been maintained as other areas in the UK have. Maintaining and auditing them is bound up with the maintenance and making sure that, whoever the supplier is, they maintain the system on a regular basis, update the software and keep a track on that.
The Chair
I am sure Members would appreciate further details on the Intel example, if you can provide that.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Q
Heba Bevan: The problem with Huawei is a bigger problem. The technology was freely created by BT and got sold to Huawei. I think that such an important technology should not have been allowed to be sold in the first place. I am sorry; this is my personal view, not a company view. I think certain technology should be kept within the country because it has a certain importance and all of us use it, so it should be kept in a certain way.
On replacing Huawei with something else, currently we do not have many options, to be honest, in terms of 5G. We have Ericsson, which is a provider of a chip. There are other providers, but they have not come out. Even looking into modules currently, UtterBerry is working on a 5G project with DCMS and the Welsh Government, and we are basically creating the first IoT solution that is completely compatible with 5G.
In terms of supplier for the chip, we have one option, which is Qualcomm. We have Ericsson as well, but they are not at the same speed as Qualcomm, so in terms of options to go with 5G, I do not think there are many suppliers in that market. The capabilities within the—
David Johnston
Q
Heba Bevan: That depends on competition law. The more the merrier probably, at least to give each of us a choice. It would be great to have a choice and to pick the best for the situation. The problem is, given the speed at which we want to roll out 5G, I do not think we will have enough time to create many companies that can provide 5G. We have the capabilities to do it in the country, but we do not have the capability to manufacture that number and roll it out to the entire country. Perhaps Dr Andy Sellars or Nick can comment on that.
Dr Johnson: Let me chip in for a bit. In terms of diversification, there is an issue with scale. Derek McManus made this point—I listened to his contributions from Thursday—about scale. In order to serve the global telecoms operator network, you need scale. You need enough financial and technical muscle to withstand the procurement practices. There is an issue around how much you can afford to deliver, at certain profit margins, in order to make a business. It is very difficult for small companies to achieve that scale.
Speaking for myself, we are a case in point. We achieved a certain degree of scale but did not get to the point where we could compete effectively with Ericsson, Nokia or anybody else in that space. There are quite a few second-tier players around, Mavenir and Airspan, which have 5G technology that could be deployed. Is that scalable to the degree that Vodafone Group would require? Do they have the financial backing to withstand Vodafone procurement organisation? I think that is a major issue.
If you look for the sentiment of the investment community around telecoms, I do not think you will get very positive feedback. Investors are, with one or two exceptions, looking elsewhere to make money. It is a very mature market. Finding new growth in that market is very challenging. I do not have an obvious answer to how, globally, you would achieve diversification. Doing from the UK is a big challenge.
The only crumb of comfort I can offer is that we should, I think, focus on core intellectual property, as a country, strategically. If you just focus on the software, and the implementation of the technology, we will get outrun by people with much bigger and much cheaper workforces, which are as highly skilled. The only way to cement the position in the global economy is by intellectual property and ensuring that you own it, it is well protected, and you can leverage it and exploit it appropriately in that space. Some of the work that Andy is doing at the Catapult is looking at not necessarily software, but technology that could be used in 5G to improve the efficiency of radios and so on. Paradoxically, hardware-centric IP may well be very important to the effective operation of a network.
I am not giving you a very good answer here. It is a very challenging political goal, to say that we want to diversify. What is in it for us as an investment community and a technology community? I think everyone is looking elsewhere at the moment.
The Chair
I am conscious of the time. Dr Sellars, do you have anything to add to that?
Dr Sellars: Absolutely. We are in a situation where we have three monolithic suppliers—we are actually down to two monolithic suppliers. With telecom diversification, we have an opportunity to look at disaggregating parts of the network, especially for newer 5G and other services.
My background is similar to Heba’s. I am an electronic engineer by trade. I have designed electronic systems that have been manufactured in the UK and I have written software to drive those systems. In the UK we have something like 5,000 companies that design and manufacture electronic systems. Something like 600 of them are involved in telecoms. I am not suggesting that all of those 600 become equal players. That would be a crazy scenario. But there are certainly some parts of the telecom network where the UK is pre-eminent. There are some backhaul and fibre technologies that we are very good at. As we deploy 5G into rural communities, that is likely to require low Earth orbit satellites; we are very good at satellite communications.
We have clusters of activity with these things around the UK. There is a cluster of radio frequency, backhaul and satellite communications in the north-east, and of satellite manufacturing in the central belt of Scotland. We have clusters of activity in the Western Gateway and around small-cell base stations. In south Wales, we have clusters of activity in compound semiconductors, which are the next generation of chips required for 5G and other high-data rates communications. So, I think the diversification strategy goals of opening up and disaggregating the markets are certainly going in the right direction.
Ultimately, it comes to the telecom operators and how many suppliers they would like in their vendor supply chain. If we can disaggregate the network and come up with open standards for various parts of the network, such as open RAN and backhaul network gateways, that opens the playing fields and enables companies to compete equally. As I say, there are a number of UK companies that could compete. They are globally competitive and could compete on equal grounds with other companies to get access to those markets.
In terms of the timescale to do this, at the moment we have three monolithic suppliers and we are going down to two. Patching that scenario feels like a very short-term timescale, but I would indicate that a broader diversification would probably be in the order of three to five years.
The Chair
Thank you. I want to try to squeeze in both Sara Britcliffe and Chris Matheson before we go the Minister and the shadow Minister, so we need short questions and succinct answers.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Q
Dr Johnson: I think broadly the Bill is okay. I have a couple of questions about the wording. The definition of a security compromise is too narrow. At the same time, the first clause would cover every single bug in every single system, regardless of whether they were to do with security or not. Does it affect availability, performance or functionality? Every bug on the planet would qualify for that. The Bill does not cover the issue of prepositioned viruses that are implanted in software, which are crucial to the next phase of network security, but it broadly makes sense.
I have one other comment around the designated vendors. What do the friends of the Bill think about a designated technology register? Designated vendors are all very well, but the technology that is being incorporated into telecoms networks is itself subject to security concerns. Should such a register of the specific technology generations or of particular operating systems and libraries, which are known to be buggy or compromised from a security point of view, be included in the Bill? It might be too late in the day for that, but I guess some of this will be picked up by the NCSC.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to move on to Heba Bevan. The question was, what is there in the Bill that you really approve of?
Heba Bevan: One of the things in the Bill that, to me, is essential is that whoever is providing the telecommunications system has to be liable for providing the security on it. I totally agree on that. They have to make sure it is secure. There are a few bits and pieces on how that is being achieved but, because of time, I can send you a few points around that.
The Chair
That would be helpful, thank you.
Dr Sellars: I agree with the points made by the other two witnesses.
Christian Matheson
Q
“I am delighted UtterBerry has been selected as a champion of British technology excellence through the TechHub programme—just one of the new initiatives we have launched in partnership with industry and the Chinese government.”
That is from Sherry Madera, the deputy director general of the Department of International Trade at the British Embassy in China. Are our firms still being pushed to share communications technology with China as this Bill is going through?
Heba Bevan: No, we worked with the Department of International Trade in 2016. The Chongqing Government were interested in having UtterBerry there. We spoke with our lawyers about the amount of IP we have and decided that we would not pursue this. We do not manufacture anything in China. Everything in UtterBerry is manufactured in the UK—software, hardware and everything we do. We mainly have graduates from the UK. We have European engineers, but recruitment is mainly kept closer, because of the IP sensitivity.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Q
I will be brief, as we are running out of time, but thank you for your expertise. My question to Andy Sellars and Heba Bevan is about the diversification strategy. In what areas do you think the UK has the capability to exploit the opportunities of this diversification strategy, particularly in hardware versus software? We have been told that hardware is beyond our manufacturing capabilities, yet you seem to be making a success out of it, Heba. What barriers are new entrants and smaller companies likely to experience and what kind of interventions should the Government make that are not fully addressed by the diversification strategy in order to ensure a UK capability in this area?
My question to Dr Johnson: we heard from Mavenir earlier, which said that open RAN could provide 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G networks now. We have also heard of the operational challenges associated with that. What is your view on the maturity of open RAN technology? We will start with Andy.
Dr Sellars: The first question was about UK capabilities to exploit the opportunity. Specifically, the UK has a cluster of small-cell base station manufacturers around the Bath and Bristol area. We have satellite communications clusters around the north-east, central Scotland and Surrey. We have a compound semiconductor cluster around south Wales, employing 1,600 highly skilled engineers generating something like £180 million per annum to the Welsh and UK economy. We have quantum encryption expertise funded through Innovate UK’s programmes, we have world-leading providers of optical transceivers for fibre communications, and we have backhaul capability.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Dr Sellars: For interventions, I would suggest that the Advanced Propulsion Centre is a really good model to look at. It is in a different sector. It is funded through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and its remit is to help to transition the automotive industry from petrol and diesel engines to electric drivetrains using batteries. Have a look at that as a model. It is an incredibly good model for transitioning an entire industry from one technology to another. It brings together supply chains and is very effective. That is one of the interventions I would suggest. Other interventions could be cyber-certification and just helping UK companies to access some of the standards bodies. That would be very effective. We have a lot of SMEs.
Heba Bevan: Thank you for your question. On hardware, as a company—and to be honest in the UK as a nation —we do not have the essential foundries. We can design and prototype the silicon, and we can work on, from the beginning, how actually it would work, but the actual manufacturing of the chip—not the hardware: that one chip which is like the CPU or a piece of DSP—those actually require very high-intensity foundries. If we want to build them in the UK it will cost around £10 billion today—probably over that number. Andy can correct me on that.
In the far east, they have unlimited resources with the state aid rule; and Europe, in the last few years, passed something, for the state aid rule, called IPCEI, which is important projects of common European interest. Germany was able to fund €1.2 billion from its money to support these foundries. France put in €0.8 billion, and Holland put in €0.4 billion. In the UK in the last few years, in terms of building these foundries, the UK has not supported that type of manufacturing. In chip manufacturing, we do not. However, on the hardware scale we are able. The way we see it, we build the hardware; we build the software—but the actual components and the chips, today we do not have the capabilities in the UK to manufacture that.
The Chair
I am really sorry to do this to you, but I think I had better interrupt and go to the Minister or we will run out of time completely.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Q
Dr Sellars: I would prioritise the funding in terms of where the vulnerabilities are in the network, in terms of the ability of the UK to fulfil those vulnerabilities and in terms of what markets it would open up. There are specific parts in the telecoms stack that are likely to be more vulnerable than others, where the UK has prime capability and where we could then develop an export opportunity. I can provide some more detailed answers in writing if that is helpful.
Dr Johnson: For my 30 seconds I would spend it on basic research, cementing the intellectual property position of the UK.
Heba Bevan: I would agree with Dr Sellars—Andy: we need to increase the amount of spending around vulnerability and strengthening the network. One other point is about spending it on areas outside the UK so it would generate more jobs around the north.
The Chair
Chi, I think you had something outstanding, and you have got just about a minute and a bit to do it.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Dr Johnson: So, the 45-second answer: Mavenir is using IP access GSM 3G technology in its open RAN development. Pardeep, I think, said that it would be ready within 12 months, and I agree that that is a true statement.
The Chair
I am sorry we had to hurry you a bit, there, but we are trying to get through quite a lot this afternoon. Can I just thank all our witnesses for your evidence and the extra bits that you said you would possibly forward to us. That would be much appreciated. Thank you, on behalf of the Committee. That brings this session to a close.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr David Cleevely, Helen Duncan and Mike Fake gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Mike Fake: It is Mike Fake, as in genuine.
The Chair
Q
Helen Duncan: I am a consultant and freelance journalist, specialising in RF technology and the wireless sector. I have been writing about this industry for the past 30 years. Prior to that, I was a practising engineer in the high-frequency electronics industry.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Fake.
Mike Fake: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Hello, everybody, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to give evidence at the Committee today. I am director and co-founder of Lumenisity, and I have spent the past 30 years in telecoms fibre optic components.
Lumenisity is a spin-out from the University of Southampton, and we have developed a new fibre optic cable technology, in which data travels 50% faster than in a conventional cable, which would digitally shrink the UK; provide a more responsive internet; increase the physical separation of data centres, moving them out of big conurbations; and potentially reduce the cost of deploying 5G. We are building a company to engineer telecoms solutions and innovatively scale up the manufacturing base in the UK.
Our opening statement is that we support the principles of the telecoms security Bill. We see the diversification strategy as critical for successful execution. It is a real opportunity to build a secure, UK-leading network, fostering new entrants and technologies in the UK telecoms supply chain, and to leverage innovative solutions in manufacturing scale in the UK.
A challenge for SMEs, which I would like to highlight, is ensuring sufficient scale-up investment. This is an expensive step and it is difficult to raise this level of capital independently, so we need a combination of public and private funding. Lumenisity is part of an overall eco-system to improve the UK competitive position in a growing next-generation economy. In summary, we would like to see this as an opportunity for a positive change, rather than a retrospective solution to a singular problem.
Dr Cleevely: My name is David Cleevely. As you have pointed out, I have invested in a number of telecoms companies and sold a few of them successfully. I have been an adviser to the Government and Ofcom. I was one of the experts who helped with the Communications Act 2003. To ensure I have full disclosure, I was on one of the boards of the MOD for eight years, looking after our ICT for all of defence, in theatre and the back office.
If I may, I would like to make three points very briefly. First, I would like to explore perhaps outside of this Committee a little bit more the edge cases for what constitutes a telecommunications network. Although provisions in the 2003 Act, sections 125 to 128 or so, cover quite a lot of things that are extended in this Bill, I think we need to think rather more carefully about what a telecommunications network actually is, in a world where many of these things are distributed, both in hardware and software.
The second point I would like to make is about the spending on R&D and procurement. I am sure we will get on to that. We need to solve a problem that is deep-seated in the UK economy about the difficulty of translating R&D and deployment into real practice. I have some further comments I could make on that.
Finally, I note that in the previous session last week, Miriam Cates picked up on one of the contributors, saying we could not forecast 20 years into the future, and Alex Towers asked about a contested story to do with Huawei back in 2005. I would like to point out that I had a small part in all of that and can verify that that was discussed. I will not go into details, as you would probably imagine I would not.
One of the things I participated in then was the Foresight cyber trust and crime prevention project. A lot of the things that we are talking about today were indeed forecast 20 years ago. There are some lessons that we can explore later in the Committee from that experience, if you wish to do so.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Q
Mike Fake: I think the diversification strategy is important. It is great to see the national telecoms centre proposal and the £250 million for research and development. One concern is whether that will be enough. Listening to earlier parts of the hearing last week, BT said that they it invests £500 million per annum and Huawei has a revenue of probably $120 billion per year. Sorry, did I say, “million”? I meant billion. What do they invest in research and development? Probably $2 billion a year. The opportunity I see is that we have a short-term focus for network equipment manufacturers to replace high-risk vendor equipment, but it will be difficult in that period for other new entrants to get their share.
The opportunity is to foster new entrants in technologies in the UK telecoms supply chain, and to leverage innovative solutions for manufacturing scale in the UK. Another issue is that there is a lot of focus on the radio access part of 5G, but that is only one small part of the network. There is optical fibre connectivity from the masts, and transport to the network’s core: that is critical to the network’s security and performance.
Helen Duncan: When I started my career, the industry was dominated by big names such as STC, Plessey, GEC and Racal. They all received funding from defence organisations such as the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment at Malvern. They used a lot of the spin-offs from that technology to develop their telecoms capability. That all ceased in the 1990s after the Berlin wall came down and cost-plus was abolished and so on. It is significant that independent industry research shrank in those times. We are now, at last, seeing a bit of stimulation going back into British industry thanks to the catapults, like Andy Sellars’, and this could be an opportunity, if not to return to those days, to put some investment in and to develop the talents we have in this country.
Dr Cleevely: The Bill is a great opportunity, as the other speakers have said. In technical jargon, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It does provide some great opportunities. I am an investor and have created a number of British companies of which, like you, I am very proud. We do, however, need to think carefully about how the market actually works. A number of speakers before us talked about the way in which the number of suppliers has come down in this business. We need to be careful in thinking about how we intervene to set the rules of the game and to encourage certain kinds of behaviour. I am very familiar with one example that relates not only to Government but also to large corporates: the notion that you go through a procurement department that is forcing you down on price, and it does not have the notion of innovation as one of its key performance indicators. The notion of innovation, on the other hand, is built into a lot of the systems that are employed in other countries, primarily the United States, as a way of evaluating whether a technology should be procured or not. We need to think rather more carefully about how we foster that development and growth of smaller companies into larger companies, particularly with this view about innovation.
For example, Ofcom is an economic regulator—one of 11 or so economic regulators in the UK. It has always, below the radar, treated innovation as one of the things it ought to be fostering. I would suggest, for example, that alongside the consideration of this Bill, we think about how we push innovation rather more firmly and put some money behind it in terms of procurement.
Dean Russell
Q
Mike Fake: Obviously, we have got two things to do here. We need to replace the existing vendors’ equipment, but in parallel, if we can invest in the UK supply chain—we have a very healthy supply chain in the sense that there are a lot of companies which provide optical components and subsystems into the equipment manufacturers. We need to do both things at once. We need to swap out the equipment, and also invest in the new companies coming up, so that in the future we can have a much more future-proof, innovative, secure and leading network.
Pushing the timescales forward, we have to recognise that in the short term we are going to be stuck with two alternative vendors that we need to swap out, but if we can invest in the up-and-coming, innovative, small SMEs and really foster those, as the previous speakers have said, I think we have got a real opportunity to change things and to have a world-leading, British, high-UK content network moving forward.
Dean Russell
Thank you. Could I ask Helen the same question?
Helen Duncan: I think there are some real practical difficulties in swapping out the equipment. It sounds simple; you just take one radio out and put another one in, but I think you would find that cell sites would be down and consumers would be complaining.
There has been some research recently by a company—albeit funded by Huawei—called Assembly Research, which estimates that it would put the UK three years behind in its programme of 5G deployment. At a time when communications are key to our surviving the unusual circumstances of the pandemic, it seems counter-intuitive to think about putting even more strain on that by moving the deadline closer. I think perhaps it should be the installation engineers who work for the networks we should be putting this question to: how much disruption is it going to cause?
Dean Russell
Thank you. David too?
Dr Cleevely: I would like to echo what Helen said, but in a rather different way. There is an engineering problem, which is what we have been dealing with, but there is also a human behavioural problem. Anybody who has worked in a large corporation or worked on these large projects will know that the way in which people approach the problem, and the way they think about it, the way they want to programme it and the urgency they feel, is driven as much by the psychological issues as it is by the technical. I would urge you to think through how you would encourage the behaviour that you want to see. Now, obviously Government can do that by simply issuing an edict and forcing a deadline, but there may be other ways that you can get more innovation and a more rapid shift than the 2027 deadline, simply by thinking through with the industry—going back to Helen’s point about the engineers on the ground—about what is required. A little bit more detailed thinking on that could yield some very positive result.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Q
Mike Fake: That is a difficult problem to solve, but I think it is important that innovation is a powerful force, and you can turn around things in this new world very quickly. Although you have old legacy systems, and you replace everything from overseas vendors with old legacy systems, you need to keep moving forward. In terms of optics, we probably have one of the world’s leading telecom fibre optics innovation capabilities in the world, through the universities. We have a whole bunch of small and medium-sized enterprises out there, and they are struggling to make that step to some scale and to get that innovation deployed in the network. But I think innovation—
Mr Jones
Q
Helen Duncan: I do not think it is necessarily the case that they will just use Ericsson and Nokia equipment. Vodafone, for instance, has committed to equipping something like 2,500 cell sites with open RAN equipment, so they are taking a forward-looking view and trying to stimulate that themselves.
Dr Cleevely: If I may intervene here as well, it is curious, is it not? The economists will tell you that sunk costs are sunk costs and you should always move forward, and that is something to hold on to. Human nature says, “Well, we’ve invested in this—let’s see if we can sweat that asset to make the most of it.” A constructive dialogue with your finance director or chief financial officer is always an essential part of all this, and, for example, it is important to understand what is driving the risk that a company is running, its weighted average cost of capital and its cost of borrowing on the market.
Essentially the point is this: if you can get more business and improve your service, and get more customers and make more money, as a result of doing investment, then that is what you will do. The key point here is whether we can find a way of making it clear and straightforward to the most truculent of finance directors or chief financial officers that this is a good investment for the future. In there lies the key, because you need to get the incentives right.
Chi Onwurah
Q
We have talked a little about how we got here; Helen, you worked for Marconi, and I worked for Northern Telecom, which bought STC, one of our last UK companies providing telecoms equipment. Without putting words into your mouth, I think the situation could be characterised by a lack of investment in innovation and in British sovereign capability. Now that we are seeking to reverse that, or to jump ahead of that, what interventions could best guarantee the long-term security and resilience of the UK telecoms network, with UK sovereign capability supporting it? Is the £250 million diversification strategy set to achieve that? Can you give examples—I am looking for quite concrete examples—of what you might add or change? David, you talked about needing to give the right incentives to the mobile operators. The telecoms supply chain review was quite clear that there is not an incentive right now in the supply chain to deliver security in mobile networks. What interventions and what incentives should there be?
Helen Duncan: Starting from how we got into this situation, in the 1990s we had three incumbent base station manufacturing companies in the UK, which were Orbitel in Nottinghamshire, and Motorola and Lucent Technologies, both in Swindon. They survived for different lengths of time: Orbitel closed down in 1996 when Ericsson took over, Motorola ceased base station manufacturing in 2002, but stayed open and was then sold to Nokia, and Lucent became Alcatel-Lucent and was closed down. Mergers and acquisitions have clearly played a huge part, as did the dotcom bubble and, as I mentioned, the removal of funding from the defence sector.
Heba made the point that to support semiconductor manufacture in the UK, the £250 million would not even start to scratch the surface. We need to concentrate a little bit further up the food chain. We have some very good capability in this country in component and subsystem manufacture based around the chips. We have some good design capability for chips that are then manufactured in the larger foundries elsewhere in the world. Supporting those activities, the design and the manufacture of components and subsystems, would give us a good basis and improve resilience.
I also want to mention that we have some capability in this country in the test and measurement sector with Spirent and VIAVI Solutions—although VIAVI is an American-owned company, it manufactures RF and wireless test equipment in the UK. By definition, test is ahead of the curve on development. If you can make equipment to test something, you can actually make that equipment, because it is much more complicated to make the test equipment than it is to make the base station or the handset itself. Those companies deserve our support as well. That was a very long question, Chi; I am not sure I covered every aspect you were asking about.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Dr Cleevely: Thanks, Chi—nice to see you. One of the things that was mentioned in the session a little bit earlier was standards, and I think one of the things that changed telecommunications between the 1970s and the dotcom revolution was the emergence of some of these more open standards, such as TCP/IP for running the internet and so on, and HTML for doing the web browsers. I think we could be putting a lot more money and effort into defining some of those standards, because if you define the interfaces for pieces of equipment correctly, you can allow people to come in and provide bits of equipment that can conform to those interfaces. That is one very concrete thing.
You are right to say that, until relatively recently, the penalties on security and so on—the consequences—have been very small, but in terms of behaviour, you need both carrot and stick on things like this. You need to have something that will give the telecom operators a real reason to do something, which might be as simple as a kitemark that says, “The telecoms network you are using has been certified as secure.” That may or may not be the kind of thing that would engender the behaviour change, but it is noticeable that with a number of things like Telegram and WhatsApp, that is seen to be quite an important thing.
Finally, the networks of people are important in all of this. I noticed that the Government have spent some money on the 5G networking across the UK, which is being run by Cambridge Wireless, which I am very proud to have helped set up. We talked in the previous session about the cluster of people down in Bristol working on semiconductors and so on, and I think the Government should be putting some money into networking people together across the UK, and between regions in particular, to have ways in which we can be exchanging ideas and getting to understand what each other is doing. We complain about silos in Government and siloes in corporate, but we have siloes across every single component of this industry, and it is no good to sit in a part of the west midlands, Cambridge or Belfast and not talk to other people about the issues, the standards and the technology. While we seem to think that that gets delivered by the free market, in reality that is not happening, and I think the Government in particular need to intervene to connect up all these people.
Today, I launched the Northern Ireland Engineering Hub for the Royal Academy of Engineering—I am chair of the enterprise committee—and that was specifically picking Northern Ireland because of its deep engineering history in order to start to connect it with a lot of the other things that are happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think we need more of that, and I think that out of it will come the same blossoming of innovation and engineering that we have seen previously when people have been connected up together. I am a great optimist on that.
The Chair
Mike, did you want to say anything else?
Mike Fake: I would just add that the radio part of this network is very important, but there is also a fibre optic network that connects it back to the core, and if we can invest in innovation—which means investing in the people who are coming up with the ideas, at the universities and so on—and in the SMEs, there may be clever ways in which we can get to scale manufacturing. That is not just for radios, but potentially hardware boxes, looking at gateways and so on, and also optical fibre, for instance. I support wholeheartedly what the other two witnesses have said, especially the point on open standards that David made.
Matt Warman
Q
Dr Cleevely: Thank you, Minister. On the short-term stuff, I am very reluctant to dash in on some of these things. I have started a few businesses. It is always a mistake to try to spend money too quickly, because you do not quite know how it is working, but if you are asking me where I would specifically spend some money, I would start to spend it on groups of people and existing researchers, connecting them up, having seminars and workshops, starting to fund little bits of research, opening up some competitions, and getting some ideas for where the standards might be—putting oil in a mechanism that has seized up and become somewhat rusty.
With relatively little money—we are talking about nothing like Heba’s amounts that you need to spend on a fab plant—I think you could free up a lot of stuff, but you need to put in, at the same time, quite a lot of investment in monitoring all of that, so that you are learning from the process. There are a lot of brilliant engineers and brilliant people in the United Kingdom. My impression is that we do not do enough to connect them up, so my first action would be to use the catapults, the academies, our brilliant universities and fabulous corporations.
Honestly, as we have already heard, we have some marvellous stuff going on in telecoms manufacture. Start to bring those people together. That costs money to service and to actually make it work. That is where I would start, and I would have a framework for what kind of information we were going to get out of that, so that it was not just a nice party, as good as that is, or a talking shop. A distributed catapult would be one way of thinking about it.
Helen Duncan: I absolutely agree with what David has just said. I would also suggest one specific area where some intervention could be very timely, given that a lot of antenna engineers were made redundant just before Christmas when a company called Axell Wireless went into administration. Antennas have not been mentioned, but Huawei holds an awful lot of intellectual property in antennas. That will be a weakness going forward. In the past, we had some significant antenna capability in this country, most of which was bought up by Cobham, which has now said it has no interest in telecoms at all. It was because they sold Axell Wireless that it has now gone into administration. That is a specific case, but it is just one example of an area where it is not too late to reverse a particular trend.
Mike Fake: I completely support David and Helen’s comments.
The Chair
We have about 11 minutes left. I will go to Kevan Jones, who I think had a question that was prompted by a reply to the Minister. Then I will try to go back to Chi and to the Minister before we finish.
Mr Jones
Q
Helen Duncan: I think hardware technology has a very poor image with investors and we could probably take an initiative to try to improve that, including trying to attract the right people to take up careers in hardware rather than software, as it is seemingly becoming not so glamorous but it underpins the whole thing.
Dr Cleevely: Helen, I think you are right. It is very interesting that these days, if you want to get investment in a company—I have personal experience of this—you present it as a software company that needs a little bit of hardware to make the software work; you do not say at all that it is a hardware company. That is one thing to note.
More seriously, on the general point about private investment and interest in these things, this is a matter of setting up the rules of the game so that it makes sense for the private investors and the private people to get involved. None of this is achieved by Government; none of it is entirely achieved, indeed, by the private sector. This is one of these areas, these issues, where you need to think about how Government set the rules up and set the incentive structure so that the private sector explores the environment—because Government cannot work out exactly how this is going to turn out. The private sector can then explore it. That is why, for example, procurement is so important. If you can procure from a number of different sources and encourage people to move forward, you will explore the possibilities of innovation much more rapidly than any single company or any single Government can. We need to construct the rules of the game so that the private sector can start to deliver what the private sector is really good at. I talked about oiling the wheels; I am talking about unblocking drains at this point. We really need to make sure that the mechanism is working properly.
Mike Fake: I would support that. I will just add that some of the mechanisms that we could explore are things like the competitions where Government put in a certain amount and private industry puts in a matching amount, but it has to be significant; it has to be a large investment—something that will make a difference, something that will take the thing from the early innovation stage through to full-scale manufacture, in the UK.
The Chair
Q
Mike Fake: I walked into that one, didn’t I? I just come back to my earlier point, which was that it is really great that the Bill is proposing £250 million of money for research and development over five years, but if that turns out to be £50 million a year and then you think just about BT, which is spending £500 million a year just on its network, the £50 million really is not very much, is it? It is appreciated—it is really appreciated—but it is not a significant amount in the context of that.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Helen Duncan: That is an interesting question.
Chi Onwurah
We could perhaps have a telecoms business bank?
Helen Duncan: You cannot stop mergers and acquisitions happening, but if you can put in some sort of criteria that companies that buy British companies need to give a commitment to continue to invest in this country for a set period of time—whether or not that is practicable—that would help.
The most important thing is to make the companies themselves strong enough so they are not targets for asset stripping, as has happened in the past. All the measures that we are talking about to oil the wheels, as David says, will make our companies stronger and able to compete in what is still a global market. I think making our companies competitive is the key to this.
Dr Cleevely: There was a thing called the Macmillan gap, which led to the emergence of the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation in the late 1940s. Translated into modern terms, that gap is investments required of around about half a million to £5 million or £10 million. We are still living with that, and that gap was identified in the 1920s. We have a structural problem in the United Kingdom about the way in which we invest in some of what would in Germany be called Mittelstand—those smaller companies. I think you are quite right, Chi, to draw attention to that as a particular risk profile. People do not want to put money necessarily past the seed stage into what I would call late series A and into series B.
The other point is procurement. As I have mentioned before, if you have a client or two who is prepared to buy kit from you, you not only get money but you get experience and expertise and you develop your company. We need more incentives for procuring from those kind of middle-sized companies, because out of those will come the giants of tomorrow.
My experience in Cambridge and elsewhere is that quite often, many of those companies say they are entirely private sector driven, but actually they have been the subject of lots of Government procurement and interventions along the way. That is particularly true in the United States where the SBIR scheme is very important.
The Chair
Do you have anything you want to add to that?
Mike Fake: I do not have anything to add to that. I support what has been said.
Matt Warman
Q
Dr Cleevely: Well, Minister, my instinct is not for the Government to not take stakes in companies, so I think that that is beginning a distortion of—
Matt Warman
That is perhaps not the phrase, but you get the gist.
Dr Cleevely: The primary way to do it is: first, let’s set the rules and regulations. Secondly, let’s put some pump priming into the networks to allow people to talk. Thirdly, let’s see if we can get the procurement sorted out so that these companies can actually get the lifeblood pumping through them. Fourthly, if you really need to, because of security or other strategic interests, are there things such as the British Business Bank or other mechanisms that can act as intermediaries? You do not want the Government directly intervening in this stuff. That is the hierarchy in which you deal with this. On exactly how that works in a particular case, I have not spent enough time thinking of a detailed response.
The Chair
I am afraid we have run out of time. I know we could have gone on a bit longer, but thanks very much to our witnesses. That concludes this session.
Examination of Witness
Doug Brake gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Doug Brake, director of broadband and spectrum policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. We have until 4 o’clock for this session.
Good afternoon, Mr Brake. Will you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Doug Brake: As you mentioned, my name is Doug Brake. I am the director of broadband and spectrum policy for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. We are a think-tank based in Washington DC, focused on policies that we believe advance innovation, with the basic belief that innovation is the key to economic growth and human flourishing over the long term.
Sara Britcliffe
Q
Doug Brake: At a very high level, I would say cyber-security generally. The goal of Government intervention should be to make it easy, cheap and desirable for the private sector to do cyber-security well. I have some vague concerns that some increased costs might come from the Bill—the compliance costs—but identifying this as a serious issue that needs to be looked at and giving Ofcom the tools that it needs to investigate security challenges, especially with regard to the equipment and working with the private sector to mitigate those risks, is a big step forward.
On the diversification strategy, I think it is a very wise document. That to my mind is one of the best opportunities that we have to mitigate long-term risks, particularly where there are high-risk vendors in the area. So I think the diversification strategy is quite wise and would make the UK a real leader in this space in terms of policy.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Q
Doug Brake: That is a good question. A lot of people are asking that question and trying to figure out exactly where this will go. I think that at a high level we have passed through the confrontation with Huawei and China over some of these innovational mercantilist policies that we have seen, which have undermined the global innovation of wireless equipment. I don’t think that will change at a high level. No politician in Washington in the US wants to be seen as soft on China. I think there will continue to be policies that attempt to roll back some of the innovation mercantilism that we have seen in the wireless equipment space. I expect and hope that it will be done with a more measured and co-ordinated effort with like-minded allies such as the UK and with less scattershot policies across the US Government.
What we have seen over the last several years in the United States is a variety of different agencies doing what they can to mitigate the risks. It is less a co-ordinated whole of Government approach in the US and more a disjointed and fragmented policy response across different agencies, so I am hopeful that under a Biden Administration we will see a much more co-ordinated effort and one that is more co-operative with allies.
Mr Jones
Q
Doug Brake: It is a good question. To start with, I will take the first part of your question, with regard to the export controls that the Administration put in place with the aim of trying to kneecap Huawei; I think it is fair to say that.
First, from our perspective, ours was not a very well-thought-through strategy—right? Without co-ordination and without a broad coalition to address those sorts of trade practices, in effect in the US we really only shot ourselves in the foot. It undermined any of the technology companies or equipment providers that were attempting to sell components and chips to Huawei. So to my mind, if you are not going to succeed in killing Huawei, or if there are ineffective strategies that undermine your own industry, I am hopeful and expectant that we will see a change in the policy going forward.
That said, if there was a desire from a broader coalition internationally to make some more extensive efforts—something like a NATO for trade, to address these unfair practices—that could be a very effective strategy, if it was done with a broader coalition.
In answer to your second question, the long-term goal of diversification of the radio access network supply chain is to allow for a much more diverse and modular system, in which any number of companies can compete within different niche areas of the market. Admittedly, there are some areas of that—high-performance, generic server infrastructure, as well as software—that the US does quite well. However, I think that opening up the supply chain would allow for a number of companies internationally to compete quite strongly.
Also I think there is a question about the extent to which different countries are willing to aggressively pursue an industrial strategy to support the sort of change that could give them a potential comparative advantage in pursuing this sort of transformational change to the telecommunications supply chain.
Mr Jones
Q
Doug Brake: I think it is absolutely right that there is a real risk if we cut off supply to China, particularly in semiconductors. We have already seen an aggressive action on their part to stand up an indigenous semiconductor industry. This is getting a little outside of my area of expertise; semiconductors is not some place that I know super well. However, I think that it is absolutely correct that there is a real risk that the extent to which we try to cut off Chinese companies will see them double down efforts to create their own indigenous supply chain. So—absolutely.
I am hopeful that we see either a change to that or a much broader international coalition to double down on those efforts. I think that it is more likely that we will see a Biden Administration ease some of those restrictions, or work through the current legal means to allow for licences for companies to sell semiconductors to Huawei and others.
Dean Russell
Q
Doug Brake: That is absolutely right. This is a long-term effort. I worry about some who tout ORAN as something of a silver bullet that we can make a quick transition to, that it is a flash cut for existing equipment providers to an open RAN sort of system—a more modular and diverse ecosystem. It is something that is going to take a number of years. I honestly worry that it is late for ORAN to be incorporated into 5G, at least on a broad scale. For greenfield networks, it is a different story and it might make sense to go with these open and modular systems from the get-go.
I worry that this is much more a conversation about putting in the tools, resources, testing facilities, the labs, R&D, et cetera, to put us on a path for years down the road so that this becomes the industry standard. I do think, absolutely, that this is the time to be looking at those early stage investments to be driving further and, frankly, looking down the road to 6G, to be able to put in place the policies and efforts to transition the industry to this more diverse future, and put those in place now for years to come.
James Sunderland
Q
Doug Brake: I worry that sometimes 5G is conceptualised as a singular technology or a singular thing. It is not a monolith; there are a number of different component technologies and a number of different flavours. Depending on whether you are doing a fully 5G network, a stand-alone network or a non-stand-alone network, it is a very different sort of system. There are also a lot of differences between what spectrum is used to deploy the network—if you are using low-band, mid-band or high-band spectrum or a combination of all three. It is hard to answer that question in generalities.
A number of different component technologies and architectures will be rolled out over time. At a high level, the real advantage of 5G compared with 4G is in its flexibility. It is able to tailor its connectivity to a number of different applications’ needs. It can offer extremely high throughput and much faster speeds. It is very reliable, with very low latency. For example, if you want to stream a football match while travelling on a train, it can do that quite well, or quite a bit better than LTE and 4G today. At the same time, you can also change very obscure technical parameters to make for simple communications that require very little battery on the device side to be able to communicate. If you want to have massive deployments of sensors for smart agriculture, or something like that, that have battery life in the order of decades, it can do that. The hallmark is its flexibility.
Given that flexibility, it is anticipated that 5G is going to be much more deeply integrated within the economy and trade sectors, and will be a key tool to boost productivity. There is an important hope that we see a broad deployment, not just in urban areas but in rural areas. Again, I go back to that note on differences depending on the spectrum that is used to deploy—unless it is of interest, I do not want to get too bogged down in the details, but there are real differences in what we would expect to see deployed in urban versus rural areas. But, again, we would also expect to see very different use cases in those areas. Admittedly, there will likely be a performance difference between urban areas and more rural areas. But at the same time, like I said, the use cases look very different—you are not likely to have massive crowds of people all looking to share video from a stadium or something like that in rural areas. There will be a real difference in the roll-out, but I worry that sometimes the challenges with that have been overstated.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Doug Brake: That is a great question. We talk now about needing diversification and seeking entry of a US-UK equipment supplier, but the question and lessons from history are about why we need this in the first place. In the past, we had quite successful telecommunications supply companies, especially in the US. The president of our organisation, Rob Atkinson, set out to answer that question. You may have seen an article in the American Affairs journal, titled, “Who Lost Lucent?” It is a long and interesting article—I will not go into all the details of history. I would say that it is fair to characterise the failures and decline of Lucent as a complicated story, but it stems from a combination of unique challenges imposed by the Anglo-American economic system, systemic failures of US Government policy—particularly with regards to anti-trust and some of the regulatory policy throughout the 1990s—and very strong and aggressive foreign industrial policies, particularly with regards to China, to acquire market share.
I am happy to go through that in some detail, but feel free to cut me off if I go on too long. You are absolutely right to say that we had Lucent and Nortel. Lucent was absolutely massive—it was three times larger than Nortel—and originally spun off from AT&T’s equipment arm, Western Electric. It had the famous Bell Labs. Throughout the ’90s, it was the largest telecoms equipment company and was still growing dramatically overseas, but due to a number of strategic decisions within the company and decisions within the US Government, it ended up really suffering as a result of the dot.com bubble.
Setting aside all the competitiveness questions, particularly with regards to Chinese companies, a hands-off, free market globalised system reigned in the US and UK throughout the ’90s. It was finance-focused capitalism that saw Lucent and Nortel cut their R&D budgets and staff dramatically, particularly as a result of the 2001 crash—much more so than some of their international competitors. With that financial system, it was harder for those companies, which were designed to be growth companies—much more so than a valued company. They were focused on growing quarter after quarter and meeting their financial targets, which made it very difficult to focus on long-term growth. You can contrast that with Ericsson in Sweden, where the Wallenberg family control a lot of the voting shares. Ericsson was able to focus on much longer-term value creation, and they did not cut staff or R&D by nearly as much as Lucent did.
Before that, I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the aggressive anti-trust action that broke up Bell Labs and restructured the entire industry. Up until the restructuring of the US telecom market in 1984, Bell Labs had a fantastic situation in order to generate innovation. It had the commercial drive, focus and flexibility that is often lacking in a Government research lab. It also had a long-term focus and an interest in broad technological change, which many R&D efforts in industry do not see. It had steady revenue from telecom rates. There is a complicated story there. It is hard to tell what concentration is good for innovation and where competition is really the order of the day, but it seems clear that the decline of Bell Labs was a real loss.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Doug Brake: Absolutely. We would be happy to do that.
Chi Onwurah
Q
Doug Brake: Absolutely. I think the diversification strategy is a very strong document. I would say, when it comes to open RAN generally, there are clear benefits that you have heard a lot about, I am sure, including diversification and faster innovation when software is decoupled from hardware. Generally, lower margins on generic components eliminate the risk of the entire sector tipping to a single vendor or a gradual narrowing of trusted suppliers, but there are real challenges with this process. Again, this is going to be a gradual effort. There is not a need to transition immediately.
First, there is a real risk of bandwagoning, where this is seen as a silver bullet and even companies that might not be interested in pursuing this area, such as Nokia and Ericsson, are willing to join in these efforts, even if it is just for the sake of defence. So, there is a real risk of bandwagoning. There is real complexity with transitioning to this sort of system. It is not immediately clear how well open RAN will scale. Actual implementation at scale in urban areas is adding a tremendous amount of complexity. There is a much larger attack surface. It is worth keeping in mind SolarWinds, a US company trusted by many within the Government, which saw this massive damaging breach.
I think there is a real challenge that remains to be addressed in the manufacturing of stand-alone radios. I think that is a potential opportunity for real co-operation: identifying companies that are interested in focusing purely on radio. There is still hardware that needs to be provided that historically was integrated with the broader system, when you only have relatively small providers that are interested in scaling up manufacturing.
The Chair
I am just going to interrupt you there. I am sorry, but I am conscious of time and I want to give the Minister a fair opportunity.
Matt Warman
Q
Doug Brake: I think there are two different opportunities. First, in the efforts of diversification, this is necessarily a globalised sector. The incumbents are massive companies with huge global economies of scale, so in order to transform the industry structure, it is going to have to be a global effort. We need all the countries aiming in this general strategic direction.
I think the document is sufficiently forward leaning. At a high level, one of the most important first steps is identifying this as a strategic imperative—that this is a goal that is shared by Governments across the world—and taking a genuine interest and focus, especially on the level of venture capital investment. Just the creation of the document is a hugely important first step. As for continued research, the real focus is on research and development and test beds. They are the key tools that we need to test and scale up, to identify real challenges and complexity.
I am not sure if this quite fits the answer, but there is a challenge around systems integration. We need to identify real leaders in systems integration. When you have real risk in pulling together different components from different suppliers, into what is essentially critical infrastructure, the risk of failure—at least, the downsides of failure—is extreme, so operators are often eager to have a single company that they can go to if something goes wrong, which can integrate all the different components. There is an important opportunity, to the extent that policy can help support those efforts.
There is all sorts of opportunity for global collaboration and for rowing towards the direction of this diverse supply chain. I think you have put together a very thoughtful piece in moving that forward. Then again, I go back to saying that this is not a silver bullet in addressing the long-term challenges around innovation mercantilism from China and Chinese companies. I think there should be more co-ordination and collaboration, especially when it comes to trade policy. Again, this is outside my area of expertise—I am 5G, specifically—but the more we can co-ordinate to be honest and up front about the real challenges and work to scale back the problem, the better.
Matt Warman
Q
Doug Brake: I think that this is absolutely the right direction to be moving in. Clearly, you need the tools to be able to analyse the risk, identify high-risk vendors and work away from potential security risks associated with that. So, absolutely, you need the tools, but there is always a broad challenge when it comes to cyber-security of the negative extra challenges, where private-sector providers might not always face all the downside of cyber-security breaches.
You can solve that by increasing the cost and increasing the downside to cyber-security risk. I think it is much wiser to help work with Government to lower the cost of doing cyber-security well. The UK, from what I can tell, is a real leader in this regard, setting up NCSC. To be able to work closely the private sector, to identify those risks and eliminate them, is much better than just turning up the dial on the downside to cyber-security breaches, or things of that nature.
I would tweak the Bill in that direction. I guess much of this can be done through implementing regulations, but, to my mind, focus more on collaboration and co-ordination with the private sector, rather than simply increasing the downside as well as the compliance costs with the legislation.
The Chair
I think that brings us virtually to time. Thank you, Mr Brake, for your evidence. That was the final evidence session for the Bill, so I thank all the witnesses. The Committee meets again on Thursday morning for line-by-line consideration. I believe that will be at 11.30 am in Committee Room 14.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maria Caulfield.)
Written Statements
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Counter-Terrorist Asset Freezing Regime: 1 July to 30 September 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (TAFA 2010), the Treasury is required to prepare a quarterly report regarding its exercise of the powers conferred on it by part 1 of TAFA 2010. This written statement satisfies that requirement for the period 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020.
This report also covers the UK’s implementation of the UN’s ISIL (Daesh) and al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime (ISIL-AQ), and the operation of the EU’s asset-freezing regime under EU Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 concerning external terrorist threats to the EU—also referred to as the CP 931 regime—for the same period (1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020).
Under the ISIL-AQ asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations, and the Treasury, through the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the ISIL (Daesh) and al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011.
Under EU Regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations, and, throughout the transition period while the UK was a member of the EU, OFSI had responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.
EU Regulation (2016/1686) was implemented on 22 September 2016. This permits the EU to make autonomous al-Qaeda and ISIL (Daesh) listings.
UK sanctions following the end of the transition period
Since the transition period ended at 11:00pm on 31 December 2020, the UK no longer applies EU sanctions regulations and all sanctions regimes will be implemented through UK regulations. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (the Sanctions Act) provides the legal framework for the UK to impose, update and lift sanctions autonomously. Information on the three new counter-terrorism sanctions regimes can be found via this link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-counter-terrorism-sanctions.
These new sanction regimes ensure that the UK implements its international obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and give effect to the UK’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2368.
There will be a final quarterly report to Parliament on the UK’s Terrorist Asset- Freezing Regime, covering the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020, which will be released in due course.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-01-19/HCWS719.
[HCWS719]
Secondary Schools and Colleges: Covid Testing
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
On 15 December 2020 we announced that we would be deploying the latest rapid-result coronavirus tests using lateral flow devices to secondary schools and colleges from 4 January to enable weekly screening of staff and daily contact testing of both staff and students who are a close contact of a positive case. This will help us to find those who have the virus but are not displaying symptoms and isolate them quickly.
The asymptomatic testing programme does not replace current testing policy for those with symptoms. Anyone with symptoms, whether they are involved in the rapid asymptomatic testing programme or not, will still be expected to obtain a PCR test and follow NHS Test and Trace guidance, self-isolating until they have received their results.
This testing programme, alongside other protective measures such as social distancing and handwashing, can support school leaders to maintain the continuity of education through the pandemic.
We can confirm that, as planned, the rapid asymptomatic testing programme in schools and colleges is being expanded to twice-weekly testing of primary school staff. Primary schools, including attached early years settings, should expect to receive initial deliveries of home testing kits to offer regular testing to all staff from the week commencing 18 January. Deliveries to maintained nurseries will be slightly later—dates to be confirmed.
Primary school staff will be asked to take tests at home rather than take them on-site following the recent approval of home test kits from the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency).
Primary school staff will be supplied with lateral flow device (LFD) test kits, which enable self-swabbing. They will be advised to test in the morning before coming into school twice a week (3-4 days apart). The LFDs supplied do not require laboratory processing and can provide a quick result in up to 30 minutes. Staff will then upload the outcome of their test (positive, negative or void) on the gov.uk website.
Taking part in the testing is not mandatory for staff and they will not be expected to provide proof of having taken a test, to enter the school. However, testing is strongly encouraged, and we expect all primary schools to offer tests to staff.
Those who test positive will need to self-isolate in line with the stay-at-home guidance.
As with all policy, this will be kept under review in light of scientific evidence, and the Government will provide further advice if necessary.
[HCWS723]
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
On 5 January 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 (All Tier Regulations) were amended. These amendments instructed people across England to stay at home and only to leave where they have a legally permitted reasonable excuse, as well as requiring the closure of many businesses and venues.
Although we are getting the virus under control, the numbers of covid-19 cases, hospital and ICU admissions, and deaths remain extremely high nationally. As a result, our hospitals are now under more pressure from covid than at any time since the start of the pandemic.
The weekly case rate in England is 520 per 100,000 for all ages and 414 per 100,000 in people aged 60 and over. There are 127 local authorities with case rates greater than 500 per 100,000. Overall positivity for England is 14.4%, with rates remaining high across all regions and continuing to increase in the north-east, west midlands and south-west. The highest positivity is in London (21.7%) and lowest in the south-west (9.5%).
These figures are significantly higher in comparison to early December and there still remains considerable pressure on NHS systems nationwide as hospitalisations continue to increase. General and acute bed occupancy for covid-19 across England has risen by 1,786 to 31,459 from 29,673 last week. Mechanical ventilation bed occupancy for covid-19 across England has similarly risen to 3,570 from 2,310 in the previous week. Deaths within 28 days of a positive test remain high at 887 on 13 January, the last day of complete reporting.
In line with our commitments, I have kept the measures in place for the national lockdown under ongoing review. On 19 January I completed a review of both the geographical allocations and the restrictions as required by the regulations and have determined that the measures remain necessary and proportionate for all areas in England. While there are early indications that new infections may have started to decline in those areas which have been under stricter measures for the longest, scientific advice and the latest epidemiological data is clear that lifting restrictions now would be too early. The restrictions are kept under continual review and will be lifted as soon as it is safe to do so.
On 18 January the Government made some minor technical amendments to the all tier regulations to clarify policy and ensure consistency. The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) 2021 were laid before Parliament on 19 January and will come into force on 20 January.
[HCWS724]
Building Regulations: Future Homes Standard and Future Buildings Standard
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I am today announcing a package of changes in relation to part L and F of the building regulations. This includes the Government’s response to the 2019 future homes standard consultation and the launch of the future buildings standard consultation.
Some 40% of the UK’s energy consumption and carbon emissions arise from the way buildings are lit, heated and used, and homes—both new and existing—account for 22% of emissions. Therefore, if we are to meet our ambitious target to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, we must improve the minimum energy efficiency standards of new buildings and homes. By improving energy efficiency and moving to cleaner sources of heat, we can reduce carbon emissions, lower energy consumption and bills for households and ensure that we will be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
I am publishing the Government’s response to the future homes standard consultation of 2019. This was the first stage of a two-part consultation which proposed an ambitious uplift in the energy efficiency of new homes through changes to part L (conservation of fuel and power) of the building regulations.
The future homes standard will deliver a considerable improvement in energy efficiency standards for new homes. We expect that homes built to the future homes standard will have carbon dioxide emissions 75% to 80% lower than those built to current building regulations standards, which means they will be fit for the future, with low carbon heating and very high fabric standards. The interim uplift to energy efficiency requirements will act as a stepping stone towards the full future homes standard, and should result in a meaningful and achievable 31% in carbon emissions savings compared to the current standard. We anticipate that a two-stage approach to implementing the future homes standard will help to prepare the necessary supply chains and appropriately skilled workforce by encouraging the use of low-carbon heating in new homes, while accounting for market factors.
The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution noted that we must implement the future homes standard within the shortest possible timeline. Therefore, our priority will be to implement an interim uplift to the energy efficiency requirements for new homes and nondomestic buildings as swiftly as possible. This key stepping stone will enable us to successfully implement the future homes standard and future buildings standard. We have also listened to those stakeholders that called for a swifter and more certain pathway to implementation. Our work on a full technical specification for the future homes standard has been accelerated and we will consult on this in 2023. We also intend to introduce the necessary legislation in 2024, with regulations coming into force from 2025. In the meantime, to provide greater certainty for all stakeholders, we have published a draft notional building specification for the future homes standard alongside this consultation response which provides a basis on which we can begin to engage with all parts of industry on the indicative technical detail of the future homes standard.
To ensure as many homes as possible are being built in line with new energy efficiency standards, transitional arrangements will now apply to individual homes rather than an entire development and the transitional period will be one year. This approach will support implementation of the 2021 interim uplift and as such the successful implementation of the future homes standard from 2025.
I am also publishing today the future buildings standard, which is the second stage of the two-part consultation. This consultation builds on the future homes standard consultation by setting out energy and ventilation standards for non-domestic buildings, existing homes and to mitigate against overheating in residential buildings.
The future buildings standard consultation proposes changes to the building regulations and primarily covers new and existing non-domestic buildings. This includes an interim uplift of part L and part F requirements for new and existing non-domestic buildings. The interim uplift will also encompass existing homes, meaning that when works take place in an existing home, such as an extension to a property, the work carried out will need to meet the standards set by building regulations—these requirements will not apply to the wider building. It also proposes some changes to requirements for new homes, including to the fabric energy efficiency standard; some standards for building services; and to guidance on the calibration of devices that carry out airtightness testing. Finally, it details a new standard for mitigating overheating in new residential buildings.
Together, the future homes standard and future buildings standard set out a pathway towards creating homes and buildings that are fit for the future; a built environment with lower carbon emissions; and homes that are adapted to the overheating risks caused by a warming climate. By making our homes and other buildings more energy efficient and embracing smart and low carbon technologies, we can improve the energy efficiency of peoples’ homes and boost economic growth while meeting our targets for carbon reduction.
I am depositing a copy of the Government response to the 2019 future homes standard consultation and the future buildings standard consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS721]
Building and Construction Products Safety
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I wish to update the House on the Government’s work to tighten regulatory oversight of construction product safety, so that people can feel confident that the products used to construct our homes will perform as they should.
Introduction
Shocking recent testimony to the Grenfell inquiry has shown that some manufacturers of safety-critical construction products appear to have put lives at risk by gaming product-testing regimes, putting products on the market that do not perform as advertised, and to be refusing to take responsibility when caught in the act.
This is unacceptable. This Government will act decisively to protect residents by ensuring that companies who manufacture or sell construction products act responsibly or face the consequences.
In her independent review of the building regulations and fire safety system, Dame Judith Hackitt recommended that industry should ensure that construction products are properly tested, certified, labelled and marketed and Government should put in place a robust regulatory framework to incentivise and oversee this. We agree.
In July 2020, this Government published in draft the Building Safety Bill. The Bill set out the biggest reforms to building safety regulation for a generation, including provisions to strengthen and extend the scope of the powers available to Government to regulate construction products. I welcome the constructive report published by the pre-legislative Committee on the draft Bill—the Government will respond to it shortly and we intend to introduce the Bill in the spring. In my statement to the House of 20 July 2020, I also committed that the Government would develop options for a new, national regulatory function that would ensure that those regulations are better enforced. Today, I want to update the House on the progress we have made on both fronts—the regulations and the regulator—as well as our plans to go further on product testing.
Broader, tougher construction products regulations
First, we are making good progress in extending and strengthening construction product regulations. At present, some products are not covered by the regulations. Our Bill will ensure that all construction products will be covered by the regulatory regime, and that all manufacturers will be required to ensure that their products are safe before putting them on the market. The Bill will also ensure that products designated as “safety critical” will be subject to additional requirements, including having to meet clear performance standards and to have undergone mandatory testing and control processes before they can be sold. The Bill will also make it possible for regulators to remove from the market any product that poses a significant safety risk, and to prosecute or use civil penalties against any company that flouts the rules.
A strong national regulator for construction products
Secondly, I am pleased to announce today that this Government will establish a national regulator to ensure that the regulations are better enforced, and to provide vital market surveillance that will enable us to spot and respond to safety concern earlier and more effectively. We will do this by extending the remit of the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), which will take on oversight of construction products alongside its existing responsibilities. OPSS has valuable skills and experience in regulating consumer products and of working closely with local authority Trading Standards and other regulators, and will be granted up to £10 million in 2021-22 to establish the new function.
The national regulator will have strong inspection and enforcement powers—including to commission and conduct its own product testing when investigating concerns—and will work with both national regulators (such as the Building Safety Regulator) and local regulators (such as Trading Standards) to encourage and enforce compliance. The regulator will also advise the public, Government and the sector on technical and policy issues, pursuant to its function. Over coming months, I expect the regulator to begin to operate in shadow form, including engaging with the sector to clarify how the new regime will operate in practice.
Going further on product testing
Thirdly, recent testimony to the Grenfell inquiry has shone a light on appalling practices by some manufacturers of construction products, including what appears to be wilful attempts to game the system and to rig the results of safety tests that are intended to give the market vital information about how products will perform in a fire.
I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority and National Trading Standards to ask them what steps they can take to ensure that marketing of construction products is not misleading. We will provide further information to the House on this in due course.
Furthermore, I am today announcing that I will shortly commission an independent review to examine in detail the deficiencies in testing and conformity assessment regime for construction products, and to recommend how we can prevent abuse of the system by irresponsible companies who are prepared to put profits before lives. The review will report later this year, and may lead to further regulatory changes.
Ongoing work to improve building safety
These measures come on top of other major steps we are taking as we deliver our commitment to bring about a generational shift in building safety, including:
£1.6 billion of funding to remove dangerous cladding from high rise buildings
Introducing the Building Safety Bill and Fire Safety Bill to bring about the biggest change in building safety for a generation
Establishing a new building safety regulator
Recruiting the first ever chief inspector of buildings
Conclusion
I trust that these important measures will receive broad support across the House. I also call on companies who manufacture, sell or distribute construction products to do the right thing and address the rotten culture and poor practice that have come to light. We have a shared responsibility to confront poor practice and establish new norms that will restore public confidence in the industry. Residents deserve and expect nothing less.
[HCWS722]
Local Plans: House Building
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
The country needs more, better and greener homes in the right places.
This Government’s ambition is to deliver 300,000 homes per year by the mid-2020s and one million homes over this Parliament. Increasing the number of up-to-date local plans across England is central to achieving that goal. Local plans not only unlock land for development and ensure that the right number of new homes are being built in the right places, they also provide local communities with an opportunity to have their say on how their local areas will change over the coming years, and how the local environment can be protected and enhanced.
Some 91% of local planning authorities have now adopted a local plan, but we know that many of them are not being kept up to date. In March 2020, the Government set a clear deadline of December 2023 for all authorities to have up-to-date local plans in place.
It is critical that work should continue to advance local plans through to adoption by the end of 2023 to help ensure that the economy can rebound strongly from the covid-19 pandemic. Completing local plans will help to ensure that we can build back better and continue to deliver the homes that are needed across England.
To support this, we recently rolled forward temporary changes that we made over the summer to ensure the planning system continues to operate effectively during the pandemic. In addition, we announced changes to the methodology for assessing local housing need and published the 2020 housing delivery test measurement. This should help to provide greater certainty for authorities who are currently preparing local plans. The Government recently issued a formal direction in relation to South Oxfordshire District Council’s local plan to ensure it continued to adoption. Where necessary, we remain committed to using all powers available to Government in order to ensure that progress on plan making is maintained.
We also want to see neighbourhood plans continue to make progress with the support of local planning authorities, to give more communities a greater role in shaping the development and growth of their local areas.
The “Planning for the future” White Paper consultation closed in October. The White Paper sets out proposals to deliver a significantly simpler, faster and more predictable system. These proposals will need further development. Authorities should not use this period as a reason to delay plan-making activities. Authorities who have an up-to-date plan in place will be in the best possible position to adapt to the new plan-making system.
I will consider contacting those authorities where delays to plan-making have occurred to discuss the reasons why this has happened and actions to be undertaken.
This written ministerial statement only covers England.
[HCWS720]